Skip to main content

Full text of "Patrology : the lives and works of the fathers of the church"

See other formats



Coll. Chriati 







, b 










Coll. CtrUti Regie 




Friburgi Brisgoviae, die I Mail 1908. 

4: THOMAS, Archiepps. 


B. HERDER, Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany). 


Milwaukee, Wis., Jan. 10., 1907. 

My dear Dr. Shahan, 

Allow me to congratulate you upon the happy thought of giving us an 
English translation of Dr. Bardenhewer s excellent Manual of Patrology. 
You know that I have been long wishing for just such a book which is a 
real desideratum for educated Catholic Americans, especially the clergy 
and our candidates for the priesthood. Protestantism, Anglican and German, 
is trying to find in the primitive Church the historic foundation for its 
sectarian tenets, while Rationalism seeks in the early Christian writings for 
weapons with which to attack the credibility of the Gospels and the apo- 
stolicity of Catholic Dogma. How can the Catholic student successfully 
meet the enemies of the Church if he has no more knowledge of the 
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, those early authentic custodians and 
exponents of the Depositum fidei , than what he has gathered from a few 
disjointed texts or patristic quotations in a Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 
or from the short sketches of the lives and writings of the Fathers found 
in a Manual of Church History? 

Yet, this is only what may be called the apologetic view of the study 
of the Fathers, suggested by the contemporary struggle of the Church 
defending her claim to be the original Church of Christ. There are many 
other valuable advantages of thorough patristic studies. A close acquaint 
ance with the Fathers of the Church will furnish those who search the 
Scriptures with a fuller and clearer understanding of the manifold and 
often hidden meaning of Holy Writ. It will provide the Christian teacher, 
called to preach the word, with an inexhaustible supply of solid and at 
tractive material. To the student of Church History, it will furnish a better 
and more correct insight into the true causes and character of events by 
throwing a wonderful light upon many questions of early Church dis 
cipline and law. Nor shall we overlook the precious gems of poetry and 
oratory, of narrative and description, found in early Christian literature, 
which compare quite favorably with the jewels of the pagan classics. 

Dr. Bardenheiver s Manual is an excellent key to the rich and varied 
literature of the Beginnings of Christianity* of which you have given us 
such interesting accounts. By your translation you have placed that key 


in our hands. It is now the duty of priest and seminarian to open the 
door to the treasury of our early classics. May the Manual* have all the 
success that it so richly deserves! 

Yours very sincerely in Christo, 


Archbishop of Milwaukee. 

St. Louis, Mo., Jan., 20., 1907. 
My dear Dr. Shahan, 

I wish to congratulate you on the appearance of your translation of 
Bardenhewer s Patrology. I have heard much of the original, and am 
sure that in your hands it has lost none of its value. I bespeak for it a 
large circulation and shall take pleasure in commending it when oc 
casion offers. 

With best wishes, I am 

Sincerely yours in Christo, 


Archbishop of St. Louis. 

Springfield, Mass., Jan. 15., 1907. 

My dear Dr. Shahan, 

The appearance of Bardenhewer s Patrology in an English translation 
will elicit a scholar s welcome from all professors and students of Patristic 
Theology and Church History* 

The excellency of the work in the original, and the well known fitness 
of the translator make our approval and recommendation an easy and 
willing evidence of our pleasure and satisfaction in its publication. 

It should easily find space upon the library shelf of every seminarist 
and every priest. 


Bishop of Springfield. 

Sioux Falls, S. D., Jan. 12., 1907. 
My dear Doctor, 

I rejoice to learn that you have translated into English Bardenhewer s 
The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church, and that Herder 
will publish the translation within the coining year. This is the best 
Manual of Patrology that I know ; it will be a boon to our seminaries and 
our priests. In these days, when the historical aspect of Theology, its 

development and evolution, are becoming as prominent and necessary as 
the Scholastic exposition of revelation, our seminarians and priests ought 
to have in hand the very best that has been done on the lives and works 
of the Fathers of the Church, since they are the exponents and witnesses 
of the growth of theology. 

I remain, dear Doctor, 

Fraternally yours, 


Bishop of Sioux Falls. 

Covington, Ky., Jan. 15., 1907. 
My dear Dr. Shahan, 

The clergy of America ought to be deeply grateful to you for the 
translation of Dr. Bardenhewer s Manual of Patrology. The lives and 
works of the Fathers are not sufficiently known amongst us. Whilst few 
priests have the leisure to study them thoroughly, they should be ac 
quainted in a general way with the teachings of the Fathers of the 
Church. They are the fountain heads of Tradition, the keys to the under 
standing of the dogmas of the Faith; they supply the most effectual 
armory in defence of Christian truth which the Catholic Church alone has 
kept in its apostolic purity of doctrine. 

Hoping that both yourself and your publication will receive adequate 
recognition of your labors, 

Devotedly yours in Christo, 


Bishop of Covington. 

Ogdensburg, N. Y., Jan. 20., 1907. 
My dear Dr. Shahan, 

The reading public of America is deeply indebted to you for under 
taking to present to it in an English dress the great work of Dr. Barden 
hewer on the Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. A Patro 
logy of that thoroughness was still a want among us. Hereafter no one 
will be excusable for misreading or misquoting those indispensable sources 
of the history of religion. You have my best wishes for a wide diffusion 
of your translation. 

Faithfully yours in J. C., 


Bishop of Ogdensburg. 


In the year 1883, I was requested by the publisher Herder 
to undertake a new edition of J. Alzogs Manual of Patrology 
(3. ed., Freiburg i. Br., 1876). External circumstances prevented me 
from accepting this flattering offer at once ; the new sphere of labor 
to which I was called claimed for a long time nearly all my leisure 
and strength. The publisher entrusted to another the preparation 
of an improved edition of Alzog (Freiburg, 1888). On the other 
hand, as soon as circumstances permitted, I undertook the prepara 
tion of an entirely new work. 

This work, which I now offer to the public, undertakes to present 
in a very concise and comprehensive manner the actual condition 
of patrological knowledge and research. It also aims, through its 
bibliographical paragraphs, to interest and guide a larger number of 
students in the investigation of special problems. It has been my 
purpose to quote from the earlier patrological literature only what 
seems most important, and similarly, to omit nothing that is impor 
tant among the numerous later researches. As the subject-matter is 
very extensive, I have found it necessary to confine myself often to 
mere indications and suggestions, to omit too close specific discussion, 
and to leave aside what seemed of minor value. The nature of the 
work seemed also to impose a mere reference apropos of countless 
disputed points and questions. At some later time, I hope, God 
willing, to follow up this outline with a m ore thorough investigation 
of the entire field of patrology. 

My colleague, Dr. C. Weyman, kindly undertook to share with 
me the labor of correcting the proofs of this work. I find it dif 
ficult to decide whether I owe more to the patience and accuracy of 
my friend in the revision of the printed pages, or to the solid eru 
dition of the savant in his concern for the correctness of the text. 

Munich, September, 1894. 




The first edition of this book met with a very kindly reception. 
It was judged worthy by Godet and Verschaffel of being put into 
French J , and by Angel o Mercati of translation into Italian 2 . I was 
less pleased, personally, with the result of my labors. Had time 
and strength sufficed, I would have undertaken the preparation of 
an entirely new book. The first third of the book, the outline of 
the Ante-Xicene literature, was its weakest part; it appears now in 
an entirely new, and I hope more satisfactory presentation. This sec 
tion of the work has caused a quite disproportionate amount of labor 
on my part, owing to the fact that I was preparing the same material 
in two forms: the first demanded a lengthy and exhaustive research 
for the comprehensive History of early ecclesiastical literature an 
nounced in the preface to the first edition, the second called for the 
concision and comprehensiveness of a manual. The remaining sections 
of the work, the defects of which are less manifest in the detail 
of description than in orderly disposition, could not receive at my 
hands so thorough a revision as would otherwise have been bestowed 
upon them. 

The contents of the work are notably increased by the insertion 
of numerous writers and works omitted in the first edition or dis 
covered since its appearance. At the same time the publisher de 
sired to keep the work within its original limits. This could only 
be done by omitting what seemed unimportant, by simplifying quo 
tation-methods, and by the use of more compact type for the biblio 
graphical paragraphs. In this manner it has been possible to reduce 
the size of the book by some thirty pages. 

I am indebted to several scholars, particularly to Fr. Diekamp, 
A. Ehrhard, Fr. X. Funk, J. Haussleiter, G. Krilgcr, and C. Wey- 
man for many useful hints and suggestions. I am again especially 
indebted to Dr. Weyman for his careful correction of the printer s work. 

Munich, April, 1901. 


1 Les Peres de 1 Eglise , leur vie et leurs ceuvres , par O. Bardenhewer. Edition 
franchise, par P. Godet et C. Verschaffel, de 1 Oratoire , 3 vols., Paris, 1898 1899, 
Bloud et Barral. 

2 Patrologia, per il Dr. O. Bardenhewer, Professore di Teologia all Universita di 
Monaco. Versione Italiana sulla seconda edizione Tedesca, con aggiunte bibliogranche, per 
il Sacerdote Dr. Prof. Angelo Mercati, Voll. i iii, Roma, 1903, Desclee, Lefvre et C ie . 


The need of a reliable manual of Patrology in English has been 
so long felt by teachers of that science that little excuse is needed 
for the present attempt to place one within reach of all concerned. 
During the nineteenth century much patristic material, both new and 
important, has been discovered, East and West. In the same period 
there has come about a notable perfection of the methods and in 
struments of scholarly research, while literary criticism has scored 
some of its remarkable triumphs in the province of early ecclesiastical 
literature. Above all, the intense and crucial conflict concerning the 
genuine nature and actual History of the primitive Christian teaching 
has perforce attracted the combatants to one great armory of 
weapons: the writings of the Christian Fathers. Excavation and 
research among the ancient monuments of Roman imperial times 
have naturally quickened interest in all contemporary literary material. 
An intelligent study of the early middle ages has made clear the 
incalculable influence exercised upon the barbarian world by the 
Christianized civilization of the fourth and fifth centuries; the manners, 
politics, and tongues of the ancestors of the modern Western world 
can no longer be studied scientifically apart from a sound knowledge 
of what our earliest Christian masters were. At this distance, such 
knowledge must, of course, be gathered, to a great extent, from 
their literature, or rather from the remnants of it that survive. 

It is to the credit of German Catholic scholarship that for a 
hundred years it has upheld the necessity of a solid academic forma 
tion for ecclesiastics, at least, in the science of the Christian Fathers. 
The names of Lumper and Permaneder , Dreiv and Moehler, Hefele 
and Fessler, to speak only of the departed, come unbidden to the 
memory of every student. German Catholic centres of study, like 
the Catholic Theological Faculty at Tubingen, have won imperishable 
fame by long decades of service in the cause of primitive Christian 
literature. Scholars like Probst and v. Funk have shed renown upon 
their fatherland and earned the gratitude of a multitude of toilers 


in this remote department of knowledge. Only those who attempt 
to cultivate it, know what a lengthy training it exacts, and to what 
an extent it calls for all the virtues and qualities of the ripest 
scholarship. It is not, therefore, surprising that the best Manual of 
patristic science should come to us from that quarter of Catholicism 
in which our most ancient literature has long been studied with a 
devotion equalled only by the critical spirit that feeds and sustains it. 

When such competent judges as the modern Bollandists agree 
that the Patrologie of Dr. Bardenhewer has no superior, for ab 
undance of information, exactness of reference, and conciseness of 
statement, we may take it for granted that the work is well fitted 
to introduce all studious Christian youth into the broad and pleasant 
sanctuary of patristic science. The experience of ecclesiastical teachers 
confirms this judgment; for the work has already been translated, 
into both French and Italian. The English translator has added 
nothing to the text, being well contented if he has reproduced with 
substantial accuracy the already highly condensed doctrine of the 
author. However, a few slight additions and bibliographical items 
have been incorporated from the French and Italian translations. The 
translator has also added a few bibliographical references to patristic 
works and treatises that have appeared quite lately. It may be 
pleaded that he is dispensed from very finical completeness by 
the exhaustive study of Ehrhard (Die altchristliche Literatur und 
ihre Erforschung seit 1880 [1884] bis 1900), the second edition of 
Chevaliers Bio-Bibliographie (1905), and the admirable patristic 
Comptes-rendus of the Revue d histoire ecclesiastique of Louvain. 

The translator is much indebted to Very Rev. ReginaldWalsh, O. P., 
who has kindly consented to correct the proofs; to the author, 
Professor Bardenhewer , for various services, and to others for wel 
come hints and suggestions. 





i. Notion and Purpose of Patrology . . I 

2. History and Literature of Patrology . 7 

3. Literary collections relative to the Fathers of the Church. Collective 

editions of their writings. Principal collections of translations . 1 1 




4. Preliminary Remarks ... *5 

5. The Apostles Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum) . *7 

6. The Didache or Teaching of The Twelve Apostles . 19 

7. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas . . 22 

8. Clement of Rome ..... 2 5 

9. Ignatius of Antioch 

10. Polycarp of Smyrna .... -35 

ii. The Shepherd of Hermas ..... 3^ 

12. Papias of Hierapolis .... 


13. Preliminary Observations . 44 

14. Quadratus .... 46 

15. Aristides of Athens ... 46 

1 6. Aristo of Pella 4$ 

17. Justin Martyr .... -49 

1 8. Tatian the Assyrian .... 

19. Miltiades. Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Melito of Sardes . 61 

20. Athenagoras of Athens .... -64 

21. Theophilus of Antioch -65 

22. The Letter to Diognetus 

23. Hermias -69 

24. Minucius Felix 





25. Gnostic Literature .......... 72 

26. The Judaistic Literature ......... 81 

27. The Montanist Literature ......... 85 

28. The New Testament Apocrypha ........ 85 

29. Apocryphal Gospels .......... 90 

30. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles ....... 97 

31. Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles . . . . . . . no 

32. Apocryphal Apocalypses . . . . . . . . . 113 




33. Anti-Gnostics. Their lost works . . . . . . . 116 

34. Irenseus of Lyons . . . . . . . . . . 118 

35. Anti-Montanists ........... 123 

36. Writings of Ecclesiastical Authorities and Synods, chiefly concerning 

Heresies and Schisms . . . . . . . . . 124 





37. General Considerations ....... .126 


38. Clement of Alexandria 127 

39- Origen ! 3 6 

40. Dionysius of Alexandria 153 

41. The later headmasters of the catechetical school of Alexandria . . 157 

42. The so-called Apostolic Church-Ordinance 160 


43. Julius Africanus ... 162 

44. Paul of Samosata, Malchion of Antioch, Lucian of Samosata . . 165 

45. Pamphilus of Csesarea and the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide . . 166 

46. The Didascalia apostolorum ....... 168 


47. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder- Worker) . . . . 170 
48. St. Methodius of Olympus ....... 175 




49. General Considerations ....... 178 


50. Tertullian 179 

51. St. Cyprian .... . . 190 

52. Arnobius ........ . 201 

53. Lactantius .......... . 203 


54. Hippolytus 208 

55. Novatian . . . .,.. . . . . . . . 22O 

56. Papal Letters .... .... 223 


57. Commodian . . . 225 

58. Victorinus of Pettau and Reticius of Autun . 227 


59. The Acts of the Martyrs 228 




60. General conspectus .......... 234 

61. Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism . . . 238 

62. Eusebius of Caesarea ......... 245 

63. St. Athanasius ... 2 53 

64. The representatives of Egyptian Monachism ..... 264 

65. Anti-Manichaean writers . . 268 

66. St. Cyril of Jerusalem ... 271 

67. St. Basil the Great 274 

68. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian ...... 286 

69. St. Gregory of Nyssa ........ 295 

70. Didymus the Blind ...... ... 307 

71. St. Epiphanius ... 310 

72. Diodorus of Tarsus ... -3*5 

73. Theodore of Mopsuestia .318 

74. St. John Chrysostom .... 3 2 3 

75. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions . 349 

76. Synesius of Cyrene .... . 358 



77. St. Cyril of Alexandria . . , 3 6 

78. Theodoret of Cyrus . 37 

79. Other writers of the first half of the fifth century . 37" 


80. Preliminary observations . . 34 

81. Aphraates ... 3 8 5 

82. St. Ephrsem Syrus . 3^7 

83. Later writers . 393 


84. General conspectus 397 

85. Firmicus Maternus ... . . 401 

86. St. Hilary of Poitiers . 42 

87. Other opponents of Arianism . . . . . . . 4 12 

88. Poets and Historians ...... 4*9 

89. Schisms and heresies; their defenders and opponents . . . 425 

90. St. Ambrose . 43 1 

91. Prudentius and Paulinus ......... 444 

92. St. Sulpicius Severus and Tyrannius Rufinus .... 45 l 

93- .St- Jerome . . 455 

94. St. Augustine ........... 473 

95. Friends and disciples of St. Augustine ...... 508 

96. Gallic writers . 515 

97. Pope St. Leo the Great and other Italian writers . . . . 522 




98. General conspectus .......... 529 

99. Writers of the second half of the fifth century 531 

100. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita . . . . . . . 535 

101. Procopius of Gaza and Aeneas of Gaza . . . . . . 541 

102. Leontius of Byzantium and the emperor Justinian . . . . 544 

103. Historians and Geographers . . . . . . . . 552 

104. Hagiographers ..... 557 

105. Poets . . . . . . . . . . 562 

106. Exegetes. Canonists. Ascetics ........ 569 

107. Dogmatic and polemical writers . . . . . , . . . > . 574 

. Io8 - St. John of Damascus . . 582 




109. Sketch of the early Armenian ecclesiastical literature . . . 589 


no. General conspectus ........ . 597 

in. Faustus of Reji . . . 600 

112. Other Gallic writers . ....... 605 

113. Irish, Spanish, and African writers ....... 613 

114. Italian writers . . . . . . . . . . 620 

115. Boethius and Cassiodorius ........ 628 

116. Writers in the Three Chapters controversy ..... 638 

117. St. Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus .... 643 

1 1 8. Pope St. Gregory the Great^ ........ 650 

119. St. Martin of Bracara and St. Isidore of Seville .... 658 

Index ....... ..... 665 


i. Notion and Purpose of Patrology. 

I. THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. The word Patrology (xarpo- 
Ao-fio.) dates from the seventeenth century, and denoted originally 
the science of the lives and writings of the Fathers of the Church. 
Fathers of the Church or simply Fathers was the title of honour 
mven to the ecclesiastical writers in the first era of the Church. 


Its use can be recognized as far back as the fifth century. In 
modern times the explanation of the term has been sought in the 
similarity of the relationship existing between a teacher and his dis 
ciple to that which is found between father and son; an inter 
pretation apparently confirmed by such biblical parallels as the sons 
of the prophets in the Old Testament, and by passages in the New 
like I Cor. iv. 14. It fails, however, to do justice to the historical 
development of the name Fathers . In reality, this was trans 
ferred from the bishops of the primitive Church to contemporaneous 
ecclesiastical writers. In the earlier centuries, by a metaphor easily 
understood, the bishop, in his quality of head or superior, was ad 
dressed as Father or Holy Father (e. g. Mart. S. Polyc. 12, 2: 
o 7zarf]f) ro>y ; and the inscription Cypriano papae or 
papati , Cypr. Ep. 30 31 36). The authority of the bishop was 
both disciplinary and doctrinal. He was the depositary of the 
teaching office of the Church, and in matters of doubt or of contro 
versy it was his duty to decide, as Avitness and judge, concerning 
the true faith. Since the fifth century, however, this function began 
to devolve (in learned discussions and conciliar proceedings) on the 
ecclesiastical writers of the primitive Church. Most of them, and 
those the more eminent, had, indeed, been bishops; but non-episcopal 
writers might also bear reliable witness to the contemporaneous faith 
of the Church, and when such testimonies dated from the earliest 
Christian period, they naturally enjoyed special respect and authority. 
The more frequently the consciousness of the primitive Church in 
matters of faith was appealed to in the course of doctrinal disputes, the 
more rapidly must so prevalent a term as Fathers have undergone a 
certain alteration. It was used to denote the witnesses to the faith 



of the primitive Church, and since such witnesses were rather its 
writers than its bishops, the term passed from the latter to the former. 

The change of meaning just alluded to will be made evident by the 
following instances. According to St. Athanasius (Ep. ad Afros, c. 6), the 
bishops of the Council ofNicsea (325) appealed to the testimony of the Fathers 
(ex ~a-pu>v e/ovte? TYJV jiapTUpiav) in defence of the consubstantiality of the 
Son with the Father; especially prominent among these Fathers were two 
early bishops (fafoxoirot dpyatbt), Dionysius of Rome (f 268) and Dionysius of 
Alexandria (f 265), both of them defenders of the consubstantiality of the Son. 
How can they now reject the Council ofNicaea, says Athanasius, since even 
their own fathers (xal 01 ~atp? auttov) subscribed its decrees?* He had just 
mentioned the name of the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. Whose 
heirs and successors are they? How can they call those men Fathers (Xe^eiv 
-ocTspa?) whose profession (of faith) they do not accept?* Apparently Atha 
nasius understands by Fathers only bishops, especially those of the primi 
tive Church. The bishops, and they alone, had inherited the teaching office 
of the Apostles. St. Augustine, in his dispute with the Pelagian Julianus of 
Eclanum (Contra Julian. I. 34 ; II. 33 36), appeals to St. Jerome as a witness 
for the ecclesiastical teaching concerning original sin ; at the same time he 
is conscious of having overstepped a certain line of demarcation. To 
forestall his adversary s refusal to accept the evidence of Jerome, he insists 
that, though the latter was not a bishop, his extraordinary learning and the 
holiness of his life entitled him to be held a reliable interpreter of the faith 
of the Church. At the first session of the council of Ephesus (431), testi 
monies were read from the writings of the most holy and godfearing fathers 
and bishops and other witnesses* (pi-fti a TU>V aYitorartov xal 63iu>ta-iov Tra-eptov 
xal ITTWXOTWUV xal Siacpoptov jjuxpTUpwv, Mansi, SS. Cone. Coll., iv. 1184). The 
writings quoted are exclusively those of early bishops. In his famous 
Commonitorium (434) St. Vincent of Lerins recommends with insistence 
( c - 3 33 sa i-) tnat the faithful hold fast to the teaching of the holy Fathers; 
at the same time he makes it clear that he refers, not so much to the 
bishops, as to the ecclesiastical writers of Christian antiquity. 

OF THE CHURCH. All the ancient ecclesiastical writers were not 
trustworthy witnesses of the faith ; hence it is that posterity has not 
conferred on all without distinction the title of Fathers of the Church . 
St. Vincent of Lerins says that, in order to try the faith of Christians, 
God permitted some great ecclesiastical teachers, like Origen and 
Tertullian, to fall into error. The true norm and rule of faith, he 
adds, is the concordant evidence of those Fathers who have remained 
true to the faith of the Church in their time, and were to the end 
of their lives examples of Christian virtue: Eorum dumtaxat patrum 
sententiae conferendae sunt, qui in fide et communione catholica sancte, 
sapienter, constanter viventes, docentes et permanentes vel mori in 
Christo fideliter vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt. * Pope 
Hormisdas 2 refuses to accept appeals to the Semi-Pelagian Faustus 
of Riez and other theologians, on the plea that they were not Fa- 

1 Common, c. 39; cf. c. 41. 

- Quos in auc tori la tern patrum non recipit examen : Ep. 124, c. 4. 


thers. Later Councils often distinguish between theological writers 
more or less untrustworthy and the approved Fathers of the Church . * 
The earliest descriptive catalogue of Fathers whose writings merit 
commendation, as well as of other theological authors against whose 
writings people are to be warned , is found in the Decretal De re- 
cipiendis et non recipiendis libris, current under the name of Pope 
Gelasius I. (492 496). Modern patrologists indicate four criteria of 
a Father of the Church : orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life, 
ecclesiastical approval, and antiquity. All other theological writers 
are known as ecclesiastici scriptores, ecclesiae scriptores 2 . The 
Fathers were not all held in equal esteem by their successors ; both 
as writers and theologians they differ much as to place and im 
portance in ecclesiastical antiquity. In the West four Fathers of the 
Church have been held as pre-eminent since the eighth century: 
Ambrose (f 397), Jerome (f 420), Augustine (f 430), and Gregory 
the Great (f 604); Boniface VIII. declared (1298) that he wished 
these four known as Doctors of the Church par excellence, and 
their feasts placed on a level with those of the apostles and evange 
lists 3 . Later popes have added other Fathers to the list of Doctors 
of the Church, either in liturgical documents or by special decrees. 
Such are, among the Latins, Hilary of Poitiers (f 366), Peter 
Chrysologus (f ca. 450), Leo the Great (f 461), Isidore of Seville 
(f 636). Among the Greeks, Athanasius (f 373), Basil the Great 
(t 379) Cyril of Jerusalem (f 386), Gregory of Nazianzus (f ca. 390), 
John Chrysostom (f 407), Cyril of Alexandria (f 444), John of Da 
mascus (f ca. 754), are honoured as Doctors of the Church. Some later 
theological writers thus distinguished are: Peter Damian (f 1072), 
Anselm of Canterbury (f 1 109), Bernard of Clairvaux (f 1153), Thomas 
Aquinas (f 1274), Bonaventure (f 1274), Francis of Sales (f 1622), 
and Alphonsus Liguori (y 1787). In 1899 Leo XIII. declared the 
Venerable Bede (f 735) a Doctor of the Church. The liturgical books 
of the Greek Church make mention of only three great ecumenical 
teachers (olxou/jisvtxol fie^d^ot diddaxaXot) . Basil the Great, Gregory 
of Nazianzum, and John Chrysostom. The patrological criteria of a 
Doctor of the Church are: orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life, 
eminent learning, and formal action of the Church: doctrina ortho- 
doxa, sanctitas vitae, eminens eruditio, expressa ecclesiae declaration 

y. Fessler, Instit. Patrol, ed. B. Jungmann (Innspruck 1890), i. 15 57. 
On the earliest Latin Doctors of the Church cf. C. IVeyman in Historisches 
Jahrbuch (1894), xv. 96 sq., and Revue d histoire et de litte rat. relig. (1898), 
iii. 562 sq. On the great ecumenical teachers of the Greeks cf. N. Nilles 

1 Probabiles ecclesiae patres : Cone. Lat. Rom. (649) can. 18 (Mansi x. 1157); 
ol If/.piroi 7tardf)sg: Cone. Nic. II (787) act. 6 (Mansz xiii. 313). 
- St. Jerome, De viris illustr., prol. 

3 Egregios ipsius doctores ecclesiae: c. un., in vi., de reliquiis 3, 22. 



in Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie (1894), xviii. 742 sq.; E. Bondy, 
Les Peres de 1 Eglise in Revue Augustinienne (1904), pp. 461 486. 

3. THE PATRISTIC EPOCH. As late as the fifth century even very 
recent writers could be counted among the holy Fathers*. Among 
the most holy and godfearing Fathers whose writings were read in 
the first session of the Council of Ephesus (June 22., 43 1) 1 were Theo- 
philus of Alexandria (f 412) and Atticus of Constantinople (t 425). 
In the list of patristic citations, paternae auctoritates, appended by 
Leo the Great to his Letter to Flavian of Constantinople (June 13., 449) 2 
there are passages from Augustine (f 430) and from Cyril of Alex 
andria (f 444). The later Christian centuries tended more and more 
to confine this honourable title to the ecclesiastical writers of anti 
quity. It was applied to them not so much on account of their 
antiquity as on account of their authority, which , in turn , had its 
root in their antiquity. The Fathers of the first centuries are and 
remain in a special way the authentic interpreters of the thoughts 
and sentiments of the primitive Christians. In their writings were set 
down for all time documentary testimonies to the primitive conception 
of the faith. Though modern Christian sects have always denounced 
the Catholic principle of tradition , they have been compelled, 
by the logic of things, to seek in ecclesiastical antiquity for some 
basis or countenance of their own mutually antagonistic views. The 
limits of Christian antiquity could not, of course, be easily fixed; 
they remain even yet somewhat indistinct. The living current of 
historical , and particularly of intellectual life , always defies any im 
movable time-boundaries. Most modern manuals of Patrology draw 
the line for the Greek Church at the death of John of Damascus 
(j- ca. 754), for the Latin Church at the death of Gregory the Great 
(f 604). For Latin ecclesiastical literature the limit should be 
stretched to the death of Isidore of Seville (f 636). Like his 
Greek counterpart, John Damascene , Isidore was a very productive 
writer, and thoroughly penetrated with the sense of his office as a 
frontiersman between the old and the new. 

The teachings of the Fathers of the Church are among the original 
sources of Catholic doctrine. On the reasons for the same and the extent 
to which the patristic writings may be drawn upon for the proof of 
Catholic teaching cf. Fessler-Jungmann, op. cit., i. 41 57. 

4. PURPOSE OF PATROLOGY. Though the science of Patrology 
takes its name from the Fathers of the Church, it includes also the 
ecclesiastical writers of antiquity. Thereby, the field of its labours 
is enlarged, and it becomes possible to deal with ecclesiastical litera 
ture as a whole. The purpose of this science is to produce a 
history of the early ecclesiastical literature, that is, of such ancient 

1 Mansi, iv. 1184 1196. 2 Ib., vi. 961 972. 


theological literature as arose on the basis of the teachings of the 
Church. In the peculiar and unique significance of this literature, 
Patrology finds the justification of such a narrow limitation of its 
subject-matter. Though this science does not ignore the distinction 
between the human and the divine in the books of the New Testa 
ment, it confides the study of these writings to Biblical Introduction, 
convinced that it would otherwise be obliged to confine itself to such 
a treatment of the same as would be unjust to inspired documents that 
contain revelation. Patrology might, strictly speaking, ignore the 
anti-Christian and anti-ecclesiastical, or heretical, writings of antiquity ; 
nevertheless, it finds it advantageous to pay constant attention to them. 
At the proper time, it becomes the duty of the patrologist, in his 
quality of historian of Christian doctrine, to exhibit the genetic growth 
of his subject. The development of early ecclesiastical literature was 
conditioned and influenced in a notable degree by the literary conflict 
against paganism, Judaism and heresy. The earliest ecclesiastical 
writers enter the lists precisely as defenders of Christianity against 
formal literary assaults. We do not accept as accurate a modern 
definition of Patrology as the literary history of early Christianity . 
From that point of view, it would have to include even the profane 
works of Christian w r riters, and become the Christian equivalent of 
heathen and Jewish literature. Moreover, it is not so much the pro 
fession of Christianity on the part of the writer as the theologico- 
ecclesiastical character of his work that brings it within the range of 
Patrology, and stamps upon it for all time something peculiar and 
distinctive. If we must no longer use the word Patrology, the science 
may well be defined as the history of early ecclesiastical literature. 
The considerations that affect the selection of the material, and the 
limitations of Patrology affect also the treatment of the subject-matter. 
Stress is laid more on the theological point of view, on the contents 
of the patristic writings, than on mere literary form. It is true that 
literary history has a distinctly artistic interest. In general, however, 
the writings of the Fathers are not literary art-work; they expressly 
avoid such a character. Until very lately a distinction was drawn 
between Patrology and Patristic. To the latter, it was said, be 
longed the study of the doctrinal content of the early Christian writers. 
The word Patristic comes from the theologia patristica of former 
Protestant manuals of dogmatic theology that were wont to contain 
a special section devoted to the opinions of the Fathers. This 
was called theologia patristica, and distinguished from theo- 
logia biblica and theologia symbolica. In the latter half of the 
eighteenth century this theologia patristica gave way among Pro 
testants to a specific history of dogma, destined to illustrate the con 
stant development and evolution of the original apostolic teaching. 
Thereby, the special office of Patristic was exhausted. There 


remains, therefore, no longer any good reason for withdrawing from 
Patrology the description of the doctrines of the Fathers, and con 
fining it to an account of their lives and deeds. With the loss of 
its subject-matter, the raison d etre of Patristic disappears. - - In 
the last few decades, all former expositions of Patrology have suf 
fered severe reproaches both from friend and foe. Broadly con 
sidered, such reproaches were both reasonable and just. It is proper 
that in the future Patrology should develop along the line of scienti 
fic history, should grasp more firmly and penetrate more deeply its 
own subject-matter, should first digest, and then exhibit in a scienti 
fic and philosophic way, the mass of literary-historical facts that 
come within its purview. In other words, its office is no longer 
limited to the study, in themselves alone, of the writings of individual 
Fathers, or of individual writings of the Fathers; it must also set 
forth the active forces that are common to all, and the relations of 
all to their own world and their own time. 

Fr. Nitzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik: Jahr- 
biicher fur deutsche Theologie (1865), x. 37 63. Nitzsch uses the term 
Patristic as identical with Patrology. Fr. Overbeck , Uber die Anfange 
der patristischen Literatur: Historische Zeitschrift (new series) (1882), xii. 
417 472. A. Ehrhard, Zur Behandlung der Patrologie: Literarischer 
Handweiser, 1895, 601 608. J. Haussleiter, Der Aufbau der altchristlichen 
Literatur: dotting. Gelehrte Anzeigen (Berlin, 1898). 

Protestant and Rationalist scholars have created in the place of Patro 
logy a history of early Christian literature, the purpose of which is 
to investigate and criticize, independently of its theological or eccle 
siastical aspects, the entire intellectual product of Christian antiquity 
from a purely literary standpoint. They have been led to this trans 
formation, or rather rejection of Patrology, not so much by general 
scientific principles, as by the hypotheses of modern rationalistic 
Protestantism, foremost among which is the denial of the supernatural 
origin of Christianity and the Church. According to them, the so- 
called Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ. It was 
only after a long evolutionary period, during which the Gospel of 
Christ underwent steadily a number of profoundly modifying influences 
in the sense of paganism , and particularly of hellenism , that the 
Catholic Church appeared among men toward the end of the se 
cond century. Since that time, both this Church and its doctrines 
have been at all times the subject of the most far-reaching changes 
and the most inconsistent innovations. The so-called Fathers of the 
Church represent only their own personal and very mutable opinions. 
There is no more objective difference between ecclesiastical and non- 
ecclesiastical, orthodox and heretical teaching, than between the in 
spired and non-inspired books of the Scriptures, etc. 


It is this view of early ecclesiastical literature (in the first three 
centuries) that predominates in the works of A. Harnack and G. Kriiger 

(Cf- 2, 4 ). 

2. History and Literature of Patrology. 

1. ST. JEROME. - - We owe to St. Jerome the idea of a Patro- 
logy or history of Christian theological literature. His work on the 
Christian writers was composed at Bethlehem in 392 at the sug 
gestion of the pretorian prefect Dexter 1 . It is modelled on the 
homonymous work of Suetonius (ca. 75 1 60), and professes to 
be a brief account of all those ecclesiastical writers (ecclesiae 
scriptores) who have written on the Sacred Scriptures (de scripturis 
sanctis aliquid memoriae prodiderunt) from the Crucifixion to the 
fourteenth year of the reign of Theodosius (392). The first chapters 
are devoted to the books of the New Testament; later on, even 
heretical writers are added (Bardesanes c. 33, Novatian c. 70, and 
others). At the end (c. 135) he gives an account of his own writ 
ings as far as the year 392. The material of the first chapters is 
taken from the New Testament; the following sections, on the Greek 
writers of the first three centuries, are hastily made and inaccurate 
excerpts from the Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea. The 
chapters on the Latin writers and on later Greek writers represent 
the personal knowledge and research of St. Jerome, and although 
they do not entirely satisfy our just expectations, they are never 
theless an historical authority of the first rank. Erasmus, who 
first edited (1516) the De viris illustribus, published also a Greek 
translation of the work {Migne 17 c.) which he attributed to Sophro- 
nius, a contemporary of St. Jerome. It was not, however, executed 
before the seventh century. 

In the very numerous manuscripts of this work of St. Jerome the con 
tinuation by Gennadius (n. 2) is usually found. It is also printed in the 
latest editions, by W. Herding, Leipzig, 1879; " ^- Bernoulli, Sammlung 
ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften xi., Frei 
burg i. Br. (1895), an d . C. Richardson, Texte und Untersuchungen zur 
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1896, xiv. i. These editions 
have not rendered further improvement impossible. O. v. Gebhardt has 
given us an excellent edition of the Greek translation, Leipzig, 1896 (Texte 
und Untersuchungen 1. c.). Cf. St. v. Sychowski, Hieronymus als Literar- 
historiker, Minister, 1894 (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, ii. 2); C. A. 
Bernoulli, Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus, Freiburg i. Br., 1895; 
G. Wentzel, Die griechische Ubersetzung der Viri inlustres des Hieronymus, 
Leipzig, 1895 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xiii. 3). 

2. CONTINUATORS OF ST. JEROME. For more than a thousand 
years, this little book of the Hermit of Bethlehem served as the 
basis of all later efforts to produce a history of theological litera 
ture. All later compilers linked their work to his, and even when 

1 De viris illustr. : Migne, PL., xxiii. 601 7 2 - 


there was added a name forgotten by him, or by one of his con- 
tinuators, the form and divisions of the work remained unchanged. 
Between the years 467 480 (apparently), Gennadius, a priest of Mar 
seilles, brought out a very useful continuation and completion of the 
De viris *. He was a Semi-Pelagian, a fact that is responsible for 
occasional deviations from his usual impartial or objective attitude. 
Otherwise, Gennadius was an historian of extensive knowledge, accurate 
judgment and honourable purpose. Isidore, archbishop of Seville 
(f 636), added considerably to the labours of Gennadius 2 , and his 
disciple Ildephonsus of Toledo (f 667) contributed a short appendix 
on some Spanish theologians 3 . Centuries were now to pass away before 
the Benedictine chronicler, Sigebert of Gembloux in Belgium (f 1112), 
took up the task once more, and carried the history of ecclesiastical 
literature down to his own time. In his book De viris illustribus 4 
he treats first, imitatus Hieronymum et Gennadium, as he himself 
says (c. 171), of the ancient ecclesiastical writers; and next gives 
biographical and bibliographical notes on early mediaeval Latin theo 
logians, usually slight and meagre in contents, and not unfrequently 
rather superficial. Somewhat similar compendia were composed by 
the priest Honorius of Augustodunum (Autun?) between 1122 and 
H25 5 , by the Anonymus Mellicensis, so called from the Bene 
dictine abbey of Melk in Lower Austria, where the first manuscript 
of his work was found, though the work itself was probably composed 
in the abbey of Priifening near Ratisbon in 1 135 6 , and by the author of 
a similarly entitled work wrongly ascribed to the scholastic theologian 
Henry of Ghent (f 1293). These compilations were all surpassed, 
in 1494, as regards the number of authors and the abundance of 
information, by the De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis of the celebrated 
abbot Johannes Trithemius (t 1516). It contains notices of 963 
writers, some of whom, however, were not theologians. Its chief 
merit lies in the information given concerning writers of the later 
period of Christian antiquity. For Trithemius, as for his predecessors, 
St. Jerome and Gennadius are the principal sources of knowledge 
concerning the literary labours of the Fathers. 

These literary-historical compilations are to be found together with 
the work of St. Jerome (Latin and Greek) in y. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca 
ecclesiastica , Hamburg, 1718. For the later editions of Gennadius by 
Herding, Bernoulli, Richardson see p. 7 cf. also Jungmaim, Quaestiones 
Gennadianae (Programme), Lipsiae, 1881 ; Br. Czapla, Gennadius alsLiterar- 
historiker, Minister, 1898 (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, iv. i); Fr. Diekamp, 
Wann hat Gennadius seinen Schriftstellerkatalog verfaBt ? Romische Quartal- 
schrift fur christliche Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengeschichte, 1898, xii. 

1 Migne, PL., Iviii. 1059 1120. - Ib., Ixxxiii. 1081 1106. 

3 Ib., xcvi. 195206. 4 Ib., clx. 547588. 

5 De luminaribus ecclesiae : Migne, PL., clxxii. 197 234. 

6 De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis : ib., ccxiii. 961 984. 


411 420. For the two Spanish historians of Christian literature cf. G. 
v. Dzialowski, Isidor und Ildefons als Literarhistoriker, Miinster (Kirchen- 
geschichtliche Studien, iv. 2). For Sigebert of Gembloux cf. Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, 6. ed., Berlin, 1893 1894, ii. 
155 162, and for his literary-historical work S. Hirseh, De vita et scriptis 
Sigeberti monachi Gemblacensis , Berolini, 1841, 330 337. There is an 
article by Stanonik on Honoritis of Augustodunum in the Kirchenlexikon 
viWetzer \m.^Welte ) 2. ed., vi. 268 274. A good edition of the Anony- 
mus Mellicensis was published by E. Ettlinger, Karlsruhe, 1896. For the 
work De viris illustribus current under the name of Henry of Ghent see 
B. Hatireau in Memoires de 1 institut national de France, Acad. des in 
scriptions et belles-lettres, Paris, 1883, xxx. 2, 349 357. The work of Tri- 
themius is discussed by J. Silbernagl, Johannes Trithemius, 2. ed., Regens- 
burg, 1885, pp. 5965. 

3. THE XVI., XVII., AND XVIII. CENTURIES. Since the fifteenth 
century the study of ecclesiastical literature has made unexpected 
progress. The humanists brought to light a multitude of unknown 
works of Latin, and especially of Greek ecclesiastical writers. The 
contention of the reformers that primitive Christianity had undergone 
a profound corruption, furthered still more the already awakened interest 
in the ancient literature of the Church. In the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, the Benedictine scholars of the French Congrega 
tion of St. Maur gave a powerful and lasting impulse to the move 
ment by the excellent, and in part classical, editions of texts, in which 
they revealed to an astonished world historical sources of almost 
infinite richness and variety. New provinces and new purposes were 
thereby opened to Patrology. The Maurists made known at the 
same time the laws for the historical study of the original 
sources; in nearly every department of ancient ecclesiastical litera 
ture, it became possible for scholars to strip the historical truth of 
the veil of legend that had hung over it. It still remained customary 
for literary historians, to deal with the ancient ecclesiastical literature 
as a whole. The most distinguished Catholic names in this period 
of patrological scholarship are those of Bellarmine (f 1621), Dupin 
(f 1719), Le Nourry (f 1724), Ceillier (f 1761), Schram (f 1797), 
Lumper (f 1800). Among the Protestant patrologists are reckoned the 
Reformed theologians Cave (f 1713), and Oudin (f 1717), a Premon- 
stratensian monk who became a Protestant in 1690). The Lutheran 
writers, Gerhard (f 1637), Hulsemann (f 1661), Olearius (f 1711), and 
others introduced and spread the use of the term Patrology , meaning 
thereby a comprehensive view of all Christian theological literature 
from the earliest period to mediaeval, and even to modern times. 

Robertus Card. Bellarminus S. J., De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis liber unus, 
cum adiunctis indicibus undecim et brevi chronologia ab orbe condito 
usque ad annum 1612, Romae, 1613; Coloniae, 1613, et saepius. L. E. 
Dupin, Nouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques , Paris, 1686 sq. 
The several sections of this extensive work appeared under different titles. 
The number of volumes also varies according to the editions. Because of 



its very unecclesiastical character the work of Dupin was placed on the 
Index, May 10. 1757. N. Le Nourry O. S. B., Apparatus ad bibliothecam 
maximam veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Lug- 
duni (1677) editam, 2 tomi, Paris, 17031715- & Ceillier O. S. B., Histoire 
generate des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques, 23 vols., Pans, 17291763; 
a new edition was brought out atParis, 18581869, 16 vols. D. Schram O. S. B., 
Analysis operum SS. Patrum et scriptorum eccl. , 18 tomi, Aug. Vind., 
I7 8o 1796. G. Lumper O. S. B., Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis 
atque doctrina SS. Patrum aliorumque scriptorum eccl. triura primorum 
saeculorum, 13 tomi, Aug. Vind., 1783 1 799. 

G. Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia litteraria a ,Christo nato 
usque ad saec. XIV, Lond. , 1688. C. Oudin , Commentarius de scripto- 
ribus eccles., 3 tomi, Lipsiae, 1722. 

Joh. Gerhardi Patrologia, s. de primitivae ecclesiae christianae doctorum 
vita ac lucubrationibus opusculum posthumum, Jenae, 1653; 3. ed., Gerae, 
1673. J. Hillsemann, Patrologia, ed. J. A. Scherzer, Lipsiae, 1670.^ J. G. 
Oharius, Abacus patrologicus, Jenae, 1673. Idem, Bibliotheca scriptorum 
eccles., 2 tomi, Jenae, 1710 1711. 

Many ancient ecclesiastical writers are treated at much length by 
L. S. le Nain de Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a 1 histoire ecclesiastique des 
six premiers siecles, 1 6 tomes, Paris, 16931712, often reprinted-, cf. also 
J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca seu notitia scriptorum veterum Grae- 
corum, 14 voll., Hamburgi, 1705 1728. A new, but unfinished edition of 
Fabricius was published by G. Chr. Harks, 12 voll., Hamburg, 17901809. 
C. Tr. G. Schoenemann , Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum latinorum, 
2 tomi, Lipsiae, 1792 1794. 

4. PATROLOGY IN MODERN TIMES. During the nineteenth century, 
the materials of ancient ecclesiastical literary history have steadily 
increased. Not only have many new Greek and Latin texts been 
discovered, notably by such scholars as Cardinal Mai (f 1854) and 
Cardinal Pitra (f 1889), but entirely new fields have been thrown 
open, particularly in the domain of the ancient Syriac and Armenian 
literatures; the elaboration of this material has called forth, especially 
in Germany, England, and North America, a zeal that grows ever 
more active and general. Protestant theologians paid particular atten 
tion to the problems of Christian antiquity, and classical philologians 
learned to overcome their former attitude of depreciation of theo- 
logico-Christian literature. The press poured forth patristic mono 
graphs in such numbers that their ever-growing flood became at 
times almost a source of embarrassment. Among the comprehensive 
works published by Catholic authors were those of Mohler (f 1838), 
Permaneder (f 1862), Fessler (f 1872), Alzog (f 1878), Nirschl, and 
others. In the latter half of the eighteenth century the custom 
arose of dividing the later from the earlier Fathers, and making 
these latter the subject of a separate branch of literary and historical 
study. Within the last few years, Protestant theologians have made 
exhaustive studies on the writers of the first three centuries. In the first 
part of his monumental work, Adolf Harnack has presented with an 
unexampled fulness the entire material of pre-Eusebian Christian literature. 


y. A. Mohler , Patrologie oder christliche Literargeschichte, edited by 
F. X. Reithmayr , vol. i (the first three Christian centuries), Ratisbon 
1840. The work was not continued. M. Permaneder, Bibliotheca patristica, 
Landishuti, 1841 1844, 2 tomi. J.Fesskr, Institutiones Patrologiae, Inns- 
pruck, 1850 1851, 2 tomi; denuo recensuit, auxit, edidit B.Jungmann, ib., 
1890 1896. y. Alzog, Gnindrifi der Patrologie oder der alteren christ- 
lichen Literargeschichte, Freiburg, 1866, 4. ed. , ib. 1888. J. Nirschl, 
Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik, Mainz, 1881 1885, 3 vols. 
y. Rezbdnyay , Compendium patrologiae et patristicae, Quinqueecclesiis 
[i. e. Fiinfkirchen], 1894. B. Swete, Patristic Study, London, 1902. 

Ch. Th. Cruttwell, A literary history of early Christianity, including 
the Fathers and the chief heretical writers of the Ante-Nicene period, 
London, 1893, 2 vols. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Lite- 
ratur bis auf Eusebius, I. Part : Die Uberlieferung und der Bestand, Leipzig, 
1893. II. Part: Die Chronologic, i. vol.: Die Chronologic der altchrist 
lichen Literatur bis Irenaus, Leipzig, 1897 ; 2. vol. : Die Chronologic der 
Literatur von Irenaus bis Eusebius, ib., 1904. G. Krilger, Geschichte der 
altchristlichen Literatur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1895 ; 
with supplement, 1897: English transl. by Gillet, History of Early Christian 
Literature, New York and London, 1897. 

P. Batiffol, La litterature grecque, Paris, 1897 (Bibliotheque de 1 enseigne- 
ment de 1 histoire ecclesiastique. Anciennes litteratures chretiennes). The 
Greek theologians of the Byzantine period (527 1453) are treated by A. Ehr- 
hard in K. Krumbacher , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2. ed., 
Munich, 1897, pp. 37 218. For the Greek hymnology of the same period cf. 
ib. pp. 653 705. The histories of Roman literature, by Bdhr , Teuffel- 
Schwabe, and Schanz , devote attention to the Latin theological writers: 
y. C/ir. F. Bdhr, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, vol. iv: Die christ- 
lich-romische Literatur, Karlsruhe, 1836 1840; W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte 
der romischen Literatur, neu bearbeitet von L. Schwabe, 5. ed., Leipzig, 1890, 
2 vols.; M. Schanz, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, 3. Part: Die Zeit 
von Hadrian (117) bis auf Konstantin (324), Munich, 1896, 2. ed. 1905. 
4. Part, i. Half: Die Literatur des 4. Jahrhunderts, 1904. Cf. especially 
A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abend- 
lande, vol. i: Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Literatur von ihren An- 
fangen bis zum Zeitalter Karls des Groften, Leipzig, 1874, 2. ed. 1889. 
Much less satisfactory is the work of M. Manitius , Geschichte der christlich- 
lateinischen Poesie bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1891. 
In the proper place will be mentioned the descriptions of ancient Syriac 
and Armenian literature. The work of Smith and Wace is very useful, 
relatively complete and generally reliable : A Dictionary of Christian Bio 
graphy, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, edited by W. Smith and H. Wace, 
London, 1877 1887, 4 vols. O. Bardenhewer , Geschichte der altkirchl. 
Literatur, I. II. torn.: Bis zum Beginn des 4. Jahrhunderts, Freiburg, 

3. Literary collections relative to the Fathers of the Church. Collective edi 
tions of their writings. Principal collections of translations. 

i. S. F. W. Hoffmann, Bibliographisches Lexikon der gesamten Litera 
tur der Griechen, 2. ed. , Leipzig, 1838 1845, 3 vojs - ^ Engelmann, 
Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum, 8. ed. , containing the literature from 
1700 1878, revised by E. Preufl, Leipzig, 18801882, 2 vols. Ulisse 
Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age, vol. i: Bio- 
Bibliographie, Paris, 1877 1886, with a supplement, Paris, 1888, 2. ed. 
1904. E, C. Richardson, Bibliographical synopsis, in the Ante-Nicene 


Fathers, Supplement, Buffalo, 1897, pp. i 136 (see n. 3). A. Ehrhard, 
Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung seit 1880. Allgemeine 
Ubersicht und erster Literaturbericht (1880 1884), Freiburg (Straftburger 
theol. Studien i, 4 5). Id., Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung 
von 1884 bis 1900. I: Die vornicanische Literatur, Freiburg, 1900 (Straft- 
burger theol. Studien, Supplem. I). Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirch- 
lichen Literatur, Freiburg, 1902 1903, vol. i ii. The literary compilations 
descriptive of the Syriac patristic literature are discussed in 8083. 

2. The principal editions of the Fathers are the following: M. de la 
Bigne, Bibliotheca SS. Patrum supra ducentos, Paris., 1575, 8 voll., with 
an appendix, ib. 1579; 6. ed., ib. 1654, 17 voll. 

Magna Bibliotheca veterum Patrum et antiquorum scriptorum eccle- 
siasticorum, opera et studio doctissimorum in Alma Universitate Colon. 
Agripp. theologorum ac professorum, Colon. Agr., 1618, 14 voll., with a 
Supplementum vel appendix, ib. 1622. 

Fr. Combefis , Graeco-Latinae Patrum Bibliothecae novum auctarium, 
Paris., 1648, 2 voll.; Id., Bibliothecae Graecorum Patrum auctarium no- 
vissimum, ib. 1672, 2 voll. 

L. d Achery , Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis, 
maxime Benedictinortim, supersunt Spicilegium, Paris., 1655 1677, 13 voll. ; 
new edition by L. Fr. J. de la Barre , Paris, 1723, 3 voll. It has been 
proved lately that d Achery included, in good faith, several documents 
forged by the Oratorian Jerome Vigmer (f 1661); the proof is clearest for 
just those pieces that were held to be the special pride of the collection. 
Cf. y. Havet, Les decouvertes de Jerome Vignier : Bibliotheque de l cole 
des Chartes, Paris, 1885, xlvi. 205 271. 

Maxima Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque ecclesiae scripto 
rum, Lugduni, 1677, 27 voll. 

y. B. Cotelier, Ecclesiae Graecae monumenta, Paris 1677 1686, 3 voll. 
In some copies the Analecta Graeca of B. de Montfaucon (Paris, 1688) 
are called the fourth volume of the Cotelier collection. 

A. Gallandi , Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum 
ecclesiasticorum, Venetiis, 1765 1781 et 1788, 14 voll. Index alphabeticus 
Bibliothecae Gallandii, Bononiae, 1863. 

M. y. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae seu Auctorum fere jam perditorum se- 
cundi tertiique saeculi fragmenta quae supersunt. Accedunt epistolae syn- 
odicae et canonicae Nicaeno concilio antiquiores, Oxonii, 1814 1818, 4 voll., 
ed. altera, 1846 1848, 5 voll. 

A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio e Vaticanis codicibus 
edita, Romae, 1825 1838, 10 voll. Id., Classici atictores e Vaticanis co 
dicibus editi, ib. 1828 1838, 10 voll. Id., Spicilegium Romanum, ib. 
18391844, 10 voll. Id. , Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, ib. 1844 1854, 
7 voll.; torn, viii ix, ed. y. Cozza-Luzi, ib. 1871 1888. 

Patrologiae cursus completus. Accurante J. P. Mignc, Paris., 1844 ad 
1866. It consists of a Greek and a Latin series. The Latin Fathers were 
published between 1844 and 1855, and come down to Innocent III. 
(t 1216), in 217 vols., with Indices in four vols. (218 221). The Greek 
Fathers were published from 1857 to 1866 and reach to the Council of 
Florence (1438 1439). T ne latter series is without Indices. D. Scholarios 
published at Athens, 1879, a Catalogue of the Greek writings in the Migne 
edition, and of those in the Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 
18281855, 48 vols.), also some fascicules of a broadly conceived index 
to both these series of Greek writers, Athens, 1883 1887. A short catalogue 
of the authors printed in the Migne series of Greek Fathers may be found 
in A. Potthast, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi, 2. ed., Berlin, 1896, ci cvi. 


y. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense complectens SS. Patrum scripto- 
rumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, Paris, 1852 1858, 4 voll. 
Id., Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, Romae, 1864 1868, 
2 voll. Id., Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, Paris, 1876 1891, 
6 voll. Id., Analecta sacra et classica Spicil. Solesm. parata, ib. 1888. His 
Analecta novissima (ib. 1885 1888, 2 voll.) contain, with the exception 
of some papal letters in the first volume, only mediaeval documents. 

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum consilio et im- 
pensis Academiae Litterarum Caesareae Vindobonensis, 1866 sqq. 

SS. Patrum opuscula selecta ad usum praesertim studiosorum theologiae. 
Edidit et commentariis auxit H. Hurter S. J., Innspruck, 1868 1885, 48 voll. 
Most of the volumes went through several editions. Series altera, ib. 
18841892, 6 voll. 

Monumenta Germaniae historica. Inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo 
usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum edidit Societas aperiendis 
fontibus rerum Germanicarum medii aevi. Auctores antiquissimi , Berol. 
1877 1898, 13 voll. This section of the Monumenta, formerly edited by 
Mommsen , includes the Latin writers of the transition period from the 
Roman to the Teutonic era. 

Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen- 
schriften, als Grundlage fiir Seminariibungen herausgegeben unter Leitung 
von G. Kriiger, Freiburg, 1891 sq. 

G. Rauschen, Florilegium patristicum. Digessit, vertit, adnotavit G. R. 
Fasc. i: Monumenta aevi apostolici. Fasc. ii: S. Justini apologiae duae. 
Fasc. iii: Monumenta minora saeculi secundi. Bonnae, 19041905. 

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 
herausgegeben von der Kirchenvater-Kommission der konigl. preuftischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leipzig 1897 ff. 

Two editions now in progress of select works by Fathers may be 
mentioned. One is the Cambridge Patristic Texts. Of this series two 
volumes have appeared, viz. : The five Theological Orations of Gregory 
of Nazianzus , ed. Mason, 1899; The Catechetical Oration of Gregory 
of Nyssa, ed. Srawley, 1903. The Letters and other Remains of Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria , ed. Feltre, 1904. 

The other collection is Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, theologiae 
tironibus et universe clero accommodata, Vizzini etc., Romae, 1901 sqq. 
Thirteen vols. of this series have been issued. It should be observed that 
in it all Greek works are accompanied by a Latin translation. 

For more detailed information as to the contents of the older collec 
tive editions of the Fathers cf. Th. Ittig, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum 
variisque veterum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum collectionibus, Lipsiae, 1707. 
y. G. Dowling, Notitia scriptorum SS. Patrum aliorumque veteris ecclesiae 
monumentorum, quae in collectionibus Anecdotorum post a. Chr. 1700 in 
lucem editis continentur, Oxonii, 1839. The collective editions of the 
Syriac Fathers are described in 80 83. 

3. COLLECTIONS OF TRANSLATIONS. Among the principal col 
lections of translations the following deserve mention: 

Bibliothek der Kirchenvater. Auswahl der vorziiglichsten patristischen 
Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung unter der Oberleitung von Fr. X. Rcith- 
mayr, fortgesetzt von B. Thalhofer, Kempten, 1860 1888, 80 voll. 

Library of the Fathers, edited by Pusey, Keble and Newman, Oxford, 
1838 1888, 45 voll. The Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Translations of 
the writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325, edited by A. Roberts and 


y. Donaldson, Edinburgh, 18661872, 24voll, with a supplementary volume, 
ed. by A. Menzies, ib. 1897. This collection of translations was reprinted 
at Buffalo, 1884 1886, under the direction of A. Cleveland Coxe, 8 voll. 
with a supplement, 1887 (New York, 1896, 10 voll.). For the bibliography 
of English translations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers see Ernest C. Richardson 
(ib. vol. x): Bibliographical Synopsis, passim. 

Ph. Schaff and H. Wace, A select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers of the Christian Church. In connection with a number of patristic 
scholars of Europe and America. Buffalo and New York, 1886 1890, 
14 voll. Second Series, New York, 





4. Preliminary Remarks. 

The primitive Christians were in general disinclined to literary 
composition. The Gospel was preached to the poor (Mt. n, 5), and 
not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the 
spirit and power (i Cor. 2, 4). The Apostles wrote only under the 
pressure of external circumstances; even in later times living oral in 
struction remained the regular means of transmission and propagation 
of the Christian truth. 

Apart from the books of the New Testament, we possess but very 
few literary remains of the apostolic and sub-apostolic period. Among 
the most ancient are the Apostles Creed, and the Doctrine of the 
Twelve Apostles discovered in 1883; both owe their origin to the 
practical needs of the primitive Christian communities. There are, 
moreover, some Letters, at once the outcome of the pastoral zeal of 
the ecclesiastical authorities and echoes of the apostolic Epistles. 

The authors of these Letters, and a few other ecclesiastical writers 
of the second century, are usually known as the Apostolic Fathers. 
J. B. Cotelier (f 1686) was the first to give the title of Patres 
aevi apostolici to the .author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, 
Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. Later 
on Papias of Hierapolis and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus 
were included in the series. There is really no intimate relationship 
between these writings. The work of Hermas is an exhortation to 
penance in the shape of a vision. Of the work of Papias only meagre 
fragments have reached us, quite useless for any clear intelligence 
of its original form; while the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in 
view of its tendency and form , more properly belongs to the 

Among the collective editions of the writings ot the Apostolic Fathers 
the following are the most important. Patres aevi apostolici sive SS. Patrum, 


qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, dementis Rom., Hermae, 
Ignatii , Polycarpi , opera edita et inedita , vera et supposititia , una cum 
dementis, Ignatii et Polycarpi actis atque martyriis. Ex mss. codicibus 
eruit, correxit versionibusque et notis illustravit J. B. Cotelerius, Paris., 1672, 
2 vol. A new edition was issued by J. Clericus , Antwerp, 1698, and 
Amsterdam, 1724, and was reprinted, with the fragments ofPapias and the 
Epistle to Diognetus added, in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., i m, Venetiis, 
1765 1767; also in Migne, PG. i. n v, Paris., 1857. - - Opera Patrum 
apostolicorum ed. C. J. Hefele, Tubingen, 1839, 4. ed. 1855. Opp. Patr. 
apostol. , textum recensuit , adnotationibus criticis, exegeticis, historicis il 
lustravit, versionem latinam, prolegomena, indices addidit P. X. Funk. Ed. 
post Hefelianam quartam quinta. Vol. i : Epistulae Barnabae , dementis 
Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Anonymi ad Diognetum, Ignatii et Polycarpi 
martyria, Pastor Hermae, Tubingen, 1878; ed. nova Doctrina duodecim 
Apostolorum adaucta. 1887. Vol. ii: dementis R. epistulae de virginitate 
eiusdemque martyrium, epistulae Pseudo-Ignatii, Ignatii martyria tria . . ., 
Papiae et seniorum apud Irenaeum fragmenta, Polycarpi vita, 1881. A 
second edition i Funk s work appeared at Tubingen 1901, 2 voll. (Patres 
Apostolici, i: Doctrina duodecim Apostolorum, Epistulae Barnabae, de 
mentis Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi huiusque martyrium, Papiae, Quadrati, 
presbyterorum apud Irenaeum fragmenta, Epistola ad Diognetum, Pastor 
Hermae ; ii : dementis Romani epistulae de virginitate eiusdemque mar 
tyrium, Epistulae Pseudo-Ignatii, Ignatii martyria, fragmenta Polycarpiana, 
Polycarpi vita). F. X. Funk, Die apostolischen Vater (Sammlung aus- 
gewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellenschriften , ed. Krilger, 
2. series I), Tubingen, 1901. Patrum apostolicorum opera ed. A. R. M. 
Dressel, Lipsiae, 1857, 2. ed. 1863. Patrum apostol. opera, textum recen- 
suerunt, commentario exeg. et histor. illustraverunt , apparatu critico, ver- 
sione lat, prolegg. , indicibus instruxerunt O. de Gebhardt , Ad. Harnack, 
Th. Zahn, ed. post Dresselianam alteram tertia. Ease, i : Barnabae epist. 
Graece et Lat., dementis R. epp. recens. atque illustr., Papiae quae stiper- 
sunt, Presbyterorum reliquias ab Irenaeo servatas, vetus Ecclesiae Rom. 
symbolum, ep. ad Diognetum adiecerunt O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack, 
Lipsiae, 1875. Fasc. i, part, i, 2. ed. : dementis R. epp., textum ad fidem 
codicum et Alexandrini et Constantinopolitani nuper inventi rec. et ill. 
O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack, 1876. Fasc. i, part, ii, 2. ed. : Barnabae 
epist., Papiae quae supersunt etc. adiec. O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack, 
1878. Fasc. II: Ignatii et Polycarpi epistulae, martyria, fragmenta rec. et 
ill. Th. Zahn, 1876. Fasc. iii: Hermae Pastor graece, addita versione 
latina recentiore e cod. Palatino, rec. et ill. O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack, 
1877 (Patrum apostol. opp. rec. O. de Gebhardt, Ad. Harnack et Th. Zahn, 
ed. minor, Lipsiae, 1877, 1894, 1900, 1902). Novum Testamentum extra 
canonem receptum (I. Clemens R., II. Barnabas, III. Hermas. IV. Evangelio- 
rum sec. Hebraeos, sec. Petrum, sec. Aegyptios, Matthiae traditionum, Petri 
et Pauli praedicationis et actuum, Petri Apocalypseos etc. quae supersunt), 
ed. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Lipsiae, 1866, 2. ed. 18761884. -- S. Clement of 
Rome. The two Epistles to the Corinthians. A revised text with intro 
duction and notes. By J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge, 1869. S. Clement of 
Rome. An Appendix containing the newly recovered portions. With intro 
ductions, notes and translations. By J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1877. The 
Apostolic Fathers. Part ii: St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp. Revised texts with 
introductions, notes, dissertations and translations. By J. B. Lightfoot, 
London, 1885, 3 voll., 2. ed. 1889. The Apostolic Fathers. Part, i: St. Cle 
ment of Rome. A revised text with introductions, notes, dissertations and 
translations By the late J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1890, 2 voll. (The 


Apostolic Fathers, text and translation, by Lightfoot and Harmer, i vol., 
London, 1890.) 

German translations of the Apostolic Fathers were made by Fr. X. 
Karker, Breslau, 1847 \ H. Scholz, Glitersloh, 1865 ; J. Chr. Mayer, Kempten, 
1869, with supplement containing the newly discovered fragments of the 
so-called Two Epistles to the Corinthians, Kempten 1880 (Bibliothek der 
Kirchenvater). The Apostolic Fathers were translated into English by 
J. Donaldson (The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. i, Edinburgh, 
1866); Ch. H. Hook, London, 1872; Dr. Burton, ib. 18881889. 

Among the writers on the Apostolic Fathers are : Ad. Hilgenfdd, Die 
Apostolischen Vater, Untersuchungen liber Inhalt tmd Ursprung der unter 
ihrem Namen erhaltenen Schriften, Halle 1853. Ch. E. Freppel , Les 
Peres apostoliques et leur epoque, Paris 1859. 4. ed. 1885. J. Donaldson, 
A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death 
of the Apostles to the Nicene Council. Vol. i: The Apostolical Fathers, 
London, 1864, 2. ed. 1874. C. Skworzow, Patrologische Untersuchungen. 
Uber Ursprung der problematischen Schriften der Apostolischen Vater, Leipzig, 
1875. J. Sprinzl, Die Theologie der Apostolischen Vater, Wien, 1880. 

5. The Apostles Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum). 

1. THE TEXT. According to an ancient tradition 1 the Apostles 
Creed, i. e. the baptismal profession of faith of the Roman liturgy, 
is of apostolic origin, not only in contents, but textually. The subject 
of this tradition is not, however, the Creed in its present form, but 
in a much older one, whereof the text, both in Greek and Latin, can 
be reconstructed with almost absolute certainty. The oldest authority 
for the Greek text is a letter of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, to 
Pope Julius I., written in 337 or 338 2 . The Latin text is first 
met with in the commentary on the Creed written by Rufinus of 
Aquileia (f 410). The Latin text is certainly a translation from the 
Greek. The extant text of the Creed differs from these ancient 
texts chiefly by reason of a few not very important additions 
(descendit ad infer os, sanctorum communionem, vitam aeternam). 
The circumstances under which the present text came into use are 
shrouded in obscurity; it is first met with in Southern Gaul about 
the middle of the fifth century. 

2. ITS ANTIQUITY. Caspari has demonstrated, by profound and 
extensive researches, that the ancient baptismal creed of the Ro 
man Church is the common basis and root of all the primitive 
baptismal creeds of the West. Following in his footsteps, Katten- 
busch holds that the Roman creed was also the archetype of all 
Eastern creeds or symbols of faith. Tertullian expressly asserts that 
the African Church received its baptismal creed from Rome 3 . He 
outlines frequently what he calls a Rule of Faith 4 , i. e. a sketch of the 

1 Tradunt maiores nostri, Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. apost., c. 2. 

2 Epiph., Haeres. 72, 2 3. 3 De praescr. haeret., c. 36. 

4 Regula fidei, lex fidei, regnla. Cf. De praescr. haeret., c. 13; De virgin, vel. 
c. i ; Adv. Prax., c. 2. 



universally taught ecclesiastical belief; it is simply a paraphrase of 
the Old-Roman baptismal creed. It was a baptismal creed that served 
Irenseus as a criterion in his description of the faith, that the Church 
scattered through the whole world had received from the Apostles 
and their disciples 1 . If the creed he describes be not that of the 
Roman Church, it is surely one that resembled it very much. The 
writings of St. Justin show that in the first half of the second century 
the Roman Church possessed a fixed and definite baptismal creed 2 . 
We possess no historical authorities older than those mentioned. 

3. APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE CREED. It is certain that the con 
tents of the Old-Roman Creed are apostolic, i. e. it reproduces in an 
exact and reliable way the teaching of the Apostles. From what has 
been said in the preceding paragraph it will be seen that it is not 
possible to demonstrate the traditional belief in the apostolic origin 
of its phraseology; on the other hand it is still more difficult to 
overthrow the same. All objections to the contrary repose on 
untenable historico-dogmatic hypotheses. It is certain, on the one 
hand, that from the earliest days of the Church the need of some 
kind of a profession of Christian faith before the reception of baptism 
was felt; the convert must in some way express his faith in the 
fundamental facts and doctrines of Christianity 3 . On the other hand, 
it must be admitted, with Caspari, that the ancient Roman Creed 
with its primitive seventy, its extreme simplicity and brevity, its highly 
lapidary style, impresses us as a document that has come down, word 
for word, from the most remote Christian antiquity . 

4. LITERATURE. The traditional forms or recensions of the Apostles 
Creed are collected in 

H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum , 9. ed., aucta 
et emendata ab J. Stahl, Freiburg, 1900, pp. i 8; with greater fulness in 
A. Plahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, 
3. ed. by G. L. Ha/in, Breslau, 1897, pp. 22 f. All modern investigations 
of the ancient baptismal creed of the Church date from the fundamental 
labours of Caspari (f 1892): C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und 
wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glau- 
bensregel, Christiania, 1866 1875, 3 v l s - Id-> Alte und neue Quellen zur 
Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, ib. 1879. 

Kattenbusch availed himself of the scholarly work of Caspari: F. Katten- 
busch, Das Apostolische Symbol, seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn, 
seine urspriingliche Stellung im Kulttis und in der Theologie der Kirche. 
Vol. i: Die Grundgestalt des Taufsymbols, Leipzig, 1894. Vol. ii: Verbreitung 
und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, 18971900. Cf. also M. Nicolas, Le 
symbole des Apotres. Essai histor. Paris, 1867. C. A. Heurtley , A His 
tory of the Earlier Formularies of Faith of the Western and Eastern 
Churches, London, 1892. We can cite but a few of the writings called forth 
in Germany since 1892 by the Kampf um das Apostolikum , a conflict 
that centred rather about the contents than about the text of the Creed. 

1 Adv. haer., i. 10, n ; cf. iii. 4, i 2; iv. 33, 7. 

2 Apol., i. 61. * Acts viii. 37; cf. Mk. xvi. 16. 


The chief opponent of the Apostolikum was A. Harnack , Das 
Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Berlin, 1892, 25. ed. 1894. Among its 
Protestant defenders Th. Zahn , Das Apostolische Symbolum, Erlangen, 
1893, 2. ed., was easily prominent. Catholic scholarship was represented by 
xS. Bdumer, Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Mainz, 1893, and C. Blume, 
Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Freiburg, 1893. Cf. B. Dor holt, Das 
Taufsymbolum der alten Kirche nach Ursprung imd Entwicklung. Parti: 
Geschichte der Symbolforschung, Paderborn, 1898. Cf. also J. Kunze, 
Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Taufbekenntnis, Leipzig, 1899. Other 
writers on the Apostles Creed are O. Scheel in Getting. Gelehrten Anzeigen, 
1901, clxii. 835 864, 913 948; A, A, Hopkins, The Apostles Creed, 
a Discussion, New York, 1900. We may also note the discussion between 
Dom Fr. Chamand and A. Vacandard in the Revue des questions histo- 
riques, for 1901. W. Sanday , Further Research on the History of the 
Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1901), iii. i 21. G. Semeria, II Credo 
in Studi Religiosi 1902, ii. i 21, and in Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto 
nella Chiesa primitiva, Rome, 1902, 315 336; G. Voisin, L origine du 
Symbole des Apotres, in Revue d hist. eccles., 1902, iii. 297- 323; A. C. 
McGiffert, The Apostles Creed, its Origin, its Purpose and its Historical 
Interpretation, London, 1902; W. W. Bishop, The Eastern Creeds and the 
Old Roman Symbol in American Journal of Theology, 1902, 518528; 
A, G. Mortimer, The Creeds, an Historical and Doctrinal Exposition of 
the Apostles , Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, London, 1902 ; A. Cusham, 
The Apostles Creed, its Origin, its Purpose, and its Historical Inter 
pretation, Edinburg, 1903 ; V. Ennoni, Histoire du Credo, le Symbole des 
Apotres, Paris, 1903 ; D. F. Weigand, Das Apostolische Symbol im Mittel- 
alter, eine Skizze, Gieften, 1904. Burn, The Textus Receptus of the 
Apostles Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 481 500. 

6. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 

I . ITS CONTENTS. This is the title of one of the oldest documents 
of Christian antiquity, discovered in 1883 by Philotheos Bryennios. 
In the only manuscript yet known, written in 1056, the little work 
is called Awayy xvpiou dta TOJV dcbdsxa dnoffroAwy TO"IQ e&vsffiv, while 
in the table of contents it is simply Aida /y TWV ocofexa diroaToXatv. 
The former is not only an older title than the latter, but is most 
probably the original. By it the anonymous author meant to suggest 
a compendious presentation of the teaching of Jesus Christ as 
preached to the gentiles by the Apostles. In length it about 
equals the Epistle to the Galatians, and is divided into two parts. 
The first (cc. I 10) contains an ecclesiastical ritual. In it are found 
instruction in Christian ethics (cc. I 6), in the shape of the descrip 
tion of the Two Ways, the Way of Life (cc. I 4) and the Way of 
Death (c. 5)- This is expressly set forth as a guide for the instruc 
tion of those who seek baptism (c. 7, i). The author then treats of 
baptism (c. 7), of fasting and prayer (c. 8), and of the Blessed Eu 
charist (cc. 9 10). These liturgical precepts are completed in the 
second part by instruction concerning the mutual relations of the 
Christian communities (the scrutiny of wandering Christian teachers, 
Aot xai npopyTat, c. 1 1, the reception of travelling brethren c. 13, 

2 * 


the support of prophets and teachers who settle in the community, 
c. 13), the religious life of each community, e. g. divine service on 
Sundays (c. 14), and the superiors of the communities, iTricrxoTrot, xal 
dtdxovot (c. 15, i 2). The work closes with a warning to be 
vigilant, for the last day is at hand. 

2. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. It was probably composed 
in the last decades of the first century, most likely in Syria or Palestine. 
It is undoubtedly of the highest antiquity; one meets no longer in 
the second Christian century with such conditions as are taken for 
granted in its references to the rite of baptism (c. 7), of the Blessed 
Eucharist (cc. 9 10), the ministers of the divine mysteries (exiaxoxot 
xai dtdxovot, c. 15, i), and the ministers of the divine word (dnooTokoi 
xai 7Tf>o(p 7jTat, c. 11, 3). The description of the Ways of Life and 
Death is so strikingly similar to that of the Ways of Light and 
Darkness in the Epistle of Barnabas (cc. 18 20), itself probably com 
posed at the end of the first century, that one of these two authors 
must have copied from the other, or both must have used a common 
original. Apart from this latter hypothesis, Funk, Zahn, and SchaiT 
have shown, as against Bryennios, Harnack, Volkmar and others, that 
in all probability it is not the Didache which is dependent on the Epistle 
to Barnabas, but the contrary. An older model is not to be 
postulated. Especially, is there no good reason for subscribing to the 
hypothesis of Harnack, Taylor, Savi and others, that the basis of the 
first chapters of the Didache is a Jewish work, some ancient cate 
chism for proselytes. On the one hand, the existence of such a 
work is purely hypothetical, and on the other, the first chapters of 
the Didache exhibit a specific Christian character by reason of the 
many phrases, turns of thought and reminiscences that they borrow 
from the New Testament. Nor is there any sufficient reason to adopt 
the hypothesis of a still older Christian Didache (Urdidache) that 
was improved and enlarged in the work before us. With some ex 
ceptions (cc. i, 3 2, i) the extant manuscript of the Didache re 
presents, quite probably, its original form. 

3. ITS HISTORY. In some of the churches of the East, particularly 
those of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, the Didache was once highly 
esteemed. Clement of Alexandria cites it as Scripture *; Athanasius 
places it among writings suitable for catechumens alongside with some 
books of the Old Testament 2 ; Eusebius places it among the apocrypha 
of the New Testament, i. e. among those books that had wrongly been 
placed by some in the canon 3 . The so-called Apostolic Church- 
Ordinance, composed probably toward the end of the third century 
in Egypt, contains (cc. 4 14) a description of the Two Ways, or rather 

eipr t rat\ Strom., i. 20, 100. 
xaAoL>/j.>-q ttbv dnoffToAwv: Ep. festal, 39. 

al Asyofisvat. dida/ai: Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 4. 


of the Way of Life, in which it is easy to recognize a slight paraphrase 
of the first four chapters of the Didache. Similarly, a more exten 
sive overworking of the entire Didache is met with in the first part 
of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions (cc. I 32), a 
work that was very probably compiled about the beginning of the 
fifth century in Syria. Among the Latins the work is first met with 
in the pseudo-Cyprianic homily Adversus aleatores 1 . There is still 
extant an ancient Latin version of the first six chapters. 

The editio princeps of the Didache is entitled : AIOGT/Y] TWV owSexa a~o- 

OToXtoV , EX TOU tSpOJOAUpUTT/.OU yfclpoypacpoi) VUV 7:pU>TOV 7.6l8o}JlVY] [ASTO, TpO- 

\z^rj\Livu>v xai urjpLstojJSwv . . . UTTG dHAoftsou Bpusvviou }JiYjTpoTcoXiTou Ntxo|jirj6ia. 
Ev KtovstavTivouTioXst, 1883 (cxlix. 75 pp.). The Codex Hierosolymitanus is 
a parchment manuscript, written in 1056, probably in Palestine. In 1883 
it was in the library of the Hospice of the Holy Sepulchre Church at 
Constantinople, whence it was soon transferred to the library of the Greek 
Patriarchate at Jerusalem. Those pages of the manuscript that contained 
the Didache were photographed by y. Rendel Harris for his edition of 
the text: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Baltimore and London, 
1887. A lively interest was at once aroused, especially in England and 
America, with the result that a rich and varied literature has grown 
up about this work. Cf. F. X. Funk, Doctrina duodecim apostolorum, 
Tubingen, 1887, pp. xlvi lii, for the literature previous to that year 2 ; a 
lengthier list is found in Ph. Schaff, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
3. ed., New York, 1889, pp. 140 158, 297320. Among the many edi 
tions of the Didache those of Bryennios, Schaff, Funk, and Rendel Harris 
are especially meritorious by reason of their wealth of information. See 
A. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel (Texte und Untersuchungen zur 
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur ii. i 2), Leipzig, 1884, stereotyped 
1893. All these editions contain, beside the text of the Didache, older 
adaptations of the Doctrine of the Two Ways, especially the Apostolic 
Church-Ordinance (entire or in part) and the first part of the seventh book 
of the Apostolic Constitutions. An Arabic adaptation of t|he first six chapters 
of the Didache, taken from a Coptic source, was discovered and published 
by Z. E. Iselin and A. Heusler, Eine bisher unbekannte Version des ersten 
Teiles der Apostellehre (Texte und Untersuchungen xiii. i), Leipzig, 1895. 
Harnack followed up his larger edition with a smaller one, in which he 
undertook to reproduce the supposed Jewish prototype of the Didache: 
Die Apostellehre und die jiidischen beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886, 2. ed. 
1896. Contemporaneously with his edition of the Didache, Funk brought 
out a new edition of the first volume of his Opera Patrum apostolico- 
rum and included in it the newly-found text Didache, sen Doctrina xii 
Apostolorum. In a Munich manuscript of the eleventh century J. Schlecht 
found an old Latin version of the first six chapters of the Didache; a 
short fragment of the same (Did. i , i 3 ; 2, 2 6) had already been 
edited by B. Pez in 1723 from a Melk codex of the ninth or tenth cen 
tury. Schlecht , Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel in der Liturgie der katho- 
lischen Kirche, Freiburg, 1900; Id., Doctrina XII apostolorum, Freiburg, 
1900. The literature of the subject is very copious; it may suffice to indi 
cate several essays of Funk, written 18841897 on the date of the origin 
of the Didache and on its relations to similar texts ; they may be found 

1 In doctrinis apostolorum, c. 4. 

2 This list has been brought -up to date in his new edition, Tubingen, 1901. 


in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, Paderborn, 1899, ii. 108 141 ; 
cf. Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons und 
der altkirchl. Literatur, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1884, iii. 278 319. A. Kra- 
wiitzcky, Uber die sogen. Zwolfapostellehre, ihre hauptsachlichsten Quellen 
und ihre erste Aufnahme, in Theol. Qnartalschrift (1884), Ixvi. 547 606. 
K. Miinchen, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel, eine Schrift des i. jahrhun- 
derts, in Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theologie (1886), x. 629-676. C. Taylor, 
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud, 
Cambridge, 1886. Id. , An Essay on the Theology of the Didache, ib. 
1889. G. Wohlenberg , Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel in ihrem Verhaltnis 
zum neutestamentlichen Schrifttum, Erlangen, 1888. J. M. Minasi , La 
dottrina del Signore pei Dodici Apostoli bandita alle genti (translation, 
notes and commentary), Rome, 1891. P. Savi, La Dottrina degli Apo 
stoli , ricerche critiche sull origine del testo con una nota intorno al eu- 
caristia, Roma, 1893, reprinted in Litteratura cristiana antica. C. H. 
Hoole, The Didache, London, 1894. Studi critici del P. Paolo Savi barna- 
bita raccolti e riordinati dal can. Fr. Bolese, Siena, 1899, 47 119. Osser- 
vazioni sulla Didache degli Apostoli in Bessarione vol. ii (1897 1898), 
12 17 vol. iii. U. Benigni , Didache coptica duarum viarum recensio 
coptica monastica per arabicam versionem superstes, ib. vol. iii (1898 and 
1899); iv. 311 329 (also in separate reprint). E. Hennecke, Die Grund- 
schrift der Didache und ihre Rezensionen, in Zeitschrift fur die neutesta- 
mentliche Wissenschaft (1901), ii. 58 72. F. X. Funk, Zur Didache, die 
Frage nach der Grundschrift und ihren Rezensionen, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1902), Ixxxiv, 73 88-, cf. R. Mariano, La dottrina dei Dodici Apostoli 
e la critica storica in I1 Cristianesimo nei primi secoli (Scritti vari, iv), 
Florence, 1902, 357 394. Liidwig , Zur Lehre vom Kirchenamte in der 
Didache, in Hist.-polit. Blatter (1901), cxxviii. 732739. P. Ladeuze, 
L Eucharistie et les repas communs des fideles dans la Didache, in 
Revue de 1 Orient chretien (1902), vii. 341 359. W. Scherer , Der 
Weinstock Davids (Did. 9, 2) im Lichte der Schrifterklarung betrachtet, 
in Katholik (1903), i. 357 365. B. Labanca, La dottrina degli Apostoli 
studiata in Italia, Roma, 1895, in Rivista italiana di nlosofia x, 1895. Th. 
Schermann , Eine Elfapostelmoral oder die X-Rezension der beiden 
Wege, Munich, 1902 (Veroffentlichungen aus dem kirchenhistor. Seminar 
ii. 2). P. Batiffol, L Eucharistie dans la. Didache, in Revue biblique 
(1905), pp. 58 67. Bigg , Notes on the Didache, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (July 1904), v. 579 589. J. V. Bartlet , (art.) Didache in 
Hastings Diet, of the Bible (extra vol.) (1904), pp. 438 451. 

7. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas. 

I . ITS CONTENTS. The Letter current under the name of St. Bar 
nabas gives the names neither of the author nor of the recipients; 
they are called sons and daughters (c. I, i) or brothers (cc. 2, 10; 
3, 6, and passim} or children (cc. 7, I ; 9, 7). Though the author 
of the Letter had preached the Gospel among those to whom it is 
addressed, he nowhere indicates their dwelling-place. Apart from the 
exordium (c. i) and the conclusion (c. 21) the Letter is divided into 
two parts of very unequal length (cc. 2 17 and 1820). The first 
part of the Letter undertakes to appreciate properly the value and 
the meaning of the Old Testament. The author is not satisfied 
with the teaching of the New Testament, that the Old has been an- 


nulled and the Mosaic Law abrogated. He goes farther and asserts 
that the Old Testament was never valid, that Judaism with its pre 
cepts and ceremonies was not ordained of God, but was a work 
of human folly and diabolical deceit. Deceived by the devil, the 
Jews had understood the Law in the literal sense, whereas they 
should have interpreted it, not according to the letter but according 
to the spirit. God asked not for external sacrifices, but for a con 
trite heart (c. 2) ; not for corporal fasting, but for good works (c. 3) ; not 
for circumcision of the flesh, but for that of the ears and the heart (c. 9) ; 
not for abstinence from the flesh of certain animals, but from the 
sins that are represented by these animals (c. 10). In truth, the 
Old Testament in its entirety was a mysterious foretelling of the New 
Testament; throughout its pages are everywhere suggested or prefigured 
the truths of Christian revelation or facts of the Gospel history. 
Thus, in the circumcision of the three hundred and eighteen servants 
of Abraham (Gen. xvii. 27; cf. xiv. 14) there is a mystical allusion 
to the death of our Lord on the cross: 18 = cy = Jesus, and 300 
= r = the Cross (c. 9). In the eighteenth chapter the author passes 
to another knowledge and doctrine . He describes minutely two 
opposite Ways, the Way of Light (c. 19) and the Way of Darkness 
(c. 20). It is highly probable, as has been already observed ( 6. 2), 
that the introduction to the Didache was here his source and model. 
There can be no doubt of the unity and homogeneity of the Letter 
in the form in which it has come down to us : the hypotheses of 
retouches and interpolations, suggested by Heydecke and Weiss, are 
without foundation. The author s literary incapacity is evident, a fact 
that explains the absence of connected and consecutive thought. 

2. ITS NON- AUTHENTICITY. With one voice Christian antiquity 
indicated as author of this work St. Barnabas, the travelling com 
panion and fellow-labourer of the Apostle Paul ; he is himself called an 
Apostle (Acts xiv. 4, 14; I Cor. ix. 5 f; cf. Gal. ii. 9). The oldest 
writer in whom are found express citations from the Letter is Clement 
of Alexandria; he frequently attributes the authorship of it to St. Barna 
bas 1 . This was also the belief of Origen 2 . The latter even calls it 
a xa$o/>ix~q ImoroXfy probably because even then it bore no special 
address. Both of these Alexandrine doctors held the Letter in 
very great veneration. Eusebius places it 3 among the non-canonical 
writings, the vofta. or flyrdefofjisvat fpa(po.i\ St. Jerome among the apo 
cryphal writings *. Both, however, seem firmly persuaded of the author 
ship of St. Barnabas. In general, throughout the patristic literature 
there is no expression to the contrary. But modern opinion judges 
differently. There may be yet an occasional defender of the authorship 

1 Strom., ii. 6, 31 ; 7, 35. 2 Contra Celsum, i. 63. 

3 Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 4; vi. 13, 6. 

4 De viris illustr., c. 6 ; Comm. in Ezech. ad 43, \<). 


of St. Barnabas, but the great majority of scholars have declared the 
Letter non-authentic. A very decisive argument is its teaching concerning 
the Old Testament; it is quite opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, 
especially of St. Paul, and cannot therefore be attributed to St. Bar 
nabas. Moreover, the indications of the author concerning the epoch 
in which he lived do not permit us to believe in the authenticity of 
this Letter. It is sufficiently certain that Barnabas did not survive 
the destruction of Jerusalem (70), a date that for the author of 
the Letter is already in the past (c. 16). It is also an undoubted 
fact that St. Barnabas was no longer alive in the time of the Emperor 
Nerva, when, according to the most approved conjectures, the Letter 
was composed. 

3. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. Two passages in the Letter 
are relied on to determine with some precision the date of its com 
position. In one (c. 4) the author maintains the proximity of the end 
of the world. This will come about in the time of an eleventh king 
who, according to the prophecy of Daniel (vil. 8, 24) has humiliated 
three of the ten kings who preceded him, and that, adds the author 
of the Letter, at the same time (utp iV c. 4. 4, 5). It seems certain 
that the time of the reign of this eleventh king was the period in which 
the Letter was composed. But who is this eleventh king? According 
to the most plausible opinion (Hilgenfeld, Funk) it is the Emperor 
Nerva (9698). His three predecessors belong to the same family, 
and in and with Domitian (the last representative of the family of the 
Flavii) all three in a certain sense may be said to have been dethroned. 
It is true that, counting in Augustus, Nerva is not the eleventh but 
the twelfth emperor; we may admit, however, that the author has 
torgotten in his enumeration one of the three ephemeral emperors 
(Galba, Otto, or Vitellius), predecessors of Vespasian, and who were 
not all recognized in every part of the empire. The second passage con 
cerning the Temple (c. 16) cannot be relied on for chronological pur 
poses. The words now the Temple is being rebuilt (c. 16. 4) 
have been recently interpreted by Harnack of the building of 
the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus under Hadrian (about 130) and 
on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem. It is highly probable, 
however, from the context, that the author is speaking not of a 
pagan temple of stone, but of a spiritual temple in the hearts of the 
(nvevpaTtxbQ vauo, o!xodofjto6fjtevo rw xopiw , c. 16. 10). The 
place of composition is usually understood to be Alexandria; the 
allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures to which the author is very 
much addicted was a special characteristic of that city. The Letter s 
immediate circle of readers might well be a mixed community of 
Judaeo-Christians and Gentile converts in the vicinity of Alexandria. 

4. MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS. The Letter of Barnabas is found com 
plete ID two manuscripts. The older and more important is the Greek biblical 


codex of the fourth century, discovered in 1859, by C. Tischendorf, and 
known as the Codex Sinaiticus. It contains, as an appendix to the biblical 
books, the Letter of Barnabas and a part of the Shepherd of Hermas. 
The other manuscript is the Codex Hierosolymitanus of the year 1056, dis 
covered by Ph. Bryennios (fol. 33 r 5i v ). There are also several manu 
scripts of this Letter that come down from a single archetype, but in 
which are lacking the first four chapters and half of the fifth: their text 
begins (c. 5. 7) with the words TOV Xaov TOV xaivov. An additional means of 
controlling the text of the Letter is found in an old Latin version, very faulty 
however and incomplete, preserved in a St. Petersburg codex of the ninth 
or tenth century; it contains the text of cc. 1 17. The Letter was 
first printed, together with the Letters of St. Ignatius, by J. Ussher, the 
Anglican archbishop of Armagh, in 1642. Cf. J. H. Backhouse, The Editio 
Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas by Archbishop Ussher, Oxford, 1883. 
A second and separate edition was published by the Maurist Benedictine 
Hugo Menard, or rather, since his death in 1644 prevented his issue 
of the work, by his confrere J. L. d Achtry, Paris, 1645. A third edition 
that included the Ignatian Letters and was based on a wider collation of 
manuscripts, was prepared by the Leyden philologian J. Voss, Amsterdam, 
1646, 2. ed. London, 1680. Many of the later editions are indicated ( 4) 
among the editions of the Apostolic Fathers: J. B. Cotelier, Paris, 1672; 
Antwerp, 1698; Amsterdam 1724 (reprinted in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr. 
t. i; Migne, PG. ii.) ; C. J. Hefele, Tubingen 1839, 4- ed - l8 55; A.M. 
Dressel, Leipzig, 1857, 2. ed. 1863; A. Hilgenfeld, ib. 1866, 2. ed. 1877. 
O. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack, ib. 1875, 2 - ed - l8 7 8 i ^ r - X. Funk, 
Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901. Translations of and works on the Apostolic 
Fathers are mentioned in 4. Among the special studies on the Letter 
of Barnabas cf. C. J. Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas, 
aufs neue untersucht, iibersetzt und erklart, Tubingen, 1840. y. Kayser, 
Uber den sog. Barnabasbrief, Paderborn, 1866. J. G. Midler, Erklarung 
des Barnabasbriefes, Leipzig, 1869. Chr. J. Riggenbach, Der sogen. Brief 
des Barnabas, Ubersetzung, Bemerkungen, Basel, 1873. C. Heydecke, Disser- 
tatio qua Barnabae Epistola interpolata demonstratur , Brunsvigi, 1874. 
O. Braunsberger, Der Apostel Barnabas. Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte 
Brief, wissenschaftlich gewurdigt, Mainz, 1876. W. Cunningham, The Epistle 
of S. Barnabas. A Dissertation including a Discussion of its date and 
authorship, London, 1877. Two dissertations by Funk, on the date of 
authorship of the Epistle, are reprinted in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhand- 
lungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 77 108. C. Fr. Arnold, Quaestionum 
de compositione et fontibus Barnabae epistolae capita nonnulla (Dissert, 
inaug.), Regiomonti, 1886. J. Weifl, Der Barnabasbrief, kritisch untersucht, 
Berlin, 1888. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (1897), 
ii. 410 428. A. Ladeuze, L fipitre de Barnabe, in Revue d histoire ecclesia- 
stique (1900), i. 31 40, 212 225. On the formal or artistic execution of 
the Epistle cf. T. M. Wehofer, Untersuchungen ziir altchristlichen Epistolo- 
graphie, Vienna, 1901. A. van VeldJwizen , De Brief van Barnabas, Gro- 
ningen, 1901. A. Di Pauli, Kritisches zum Barnabasbrief, in Histor.-polit. 
Blatter (1902), cxxxi 318324. J. Tunnel, La lettre de Barnabe , in 
Annales de philos. chretienne, 1903, juillet, 387 398. 

8. Clement of Rome. 

I. ins LIFE. According to St. Irenseus 1 , he was the third successor 
of St. Peter in the Roman See. The later opinion that Clement 

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 3. 


was the immediate successor of St. Peter * is probably derived from the 
so-called Clementine Literature ( 26, 3) and certainly is unhistorical. 
Eusebius himself looked on Clement as the fourth pope, and reckoned 
his pontificate at nine years (92- 101), from the twelfth year of 
Domitian to the third of Trajan 2 . For his early life we are reduced 
to conjecture. The Clementine statement that he belonged to the 
imperial family of the Flavii deserves no credence. Recent writers 
have wisely abandoned the hypothesis, closely related to the Cle 
mentine view, that Clement is identical with the consul Titus Flavius 
Clemens, a cousin of Domitian, put to death (95 or 96) as guilty 
of atheism and Jewish practices, i. e. very probably as a Christian 3 . 
The general impression produced by his Epistle to the Corinthians 
seems favourable to the thesis that Clement was of Jewish, not 
Gentile, parentage. The relatively very late narratives of his martyr 
dom can hardly claim to be more than poetry and saga. Origen 4 
and Eusebius 5 identify our writer with that Clement whom St. Paul 
names and praises as one of his fellow-labourers 6 . 

The testimonia of antiquity concerning Clement are discussed at 
length in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I, London, 1890, i. 14103, 
104115, 201 345. For his place in the catalogue of popes see Duchesne, 
Liber Pontificalis, I, Paris, 1886, Ixxi. Ixxxiii, and for the consul Titus 
Flavius Clemens, Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Unter- 
suchungen, Paderborn, 1897, i. 308 329. 

2. THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. Clement is the author 
of a long Letter to the Christian community at Corinth, that has 
reached us in the Greek original and in a Latin and a Syriac version. 
In that city a few bold and presumptuous men (c. i, I, cf. 47. 6) 
had risen against their ecclesiastical superiors and driven them from 
their offices; Clement desires to put an end to the confusion. In 
the exordium of his Letter he depicts in lively colours the former 
flourishing state of the Church of Corinth ; after a brief notice of the 
very deplorable actual condition of the community, he goes on to 
the first part of the Letter (cc. 4 36). It contains instruction and 
exhortation of a general character, warns the Corinthians against 
envy and jealousy, recommends humility and obedience, and appeals 
continually to the types and examples of these virtues offered by 
the Old Testament. The second part (cc. 36 61) deals more 
directly with the situation at Corinth. He treats here of the eccle 
siastical hierarchy and exhibits the necessity of subjection to the 
legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. In conclusion (cc. 62 65) he 

1 St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15. 

2 Hist, eccl., iii. 15, 34; cf. Chron. ad an. Abrah. 2 no. 

3 Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., Ixvii. 14; cf. Suet., Domit., c. 15. 

4 Comm. in Jo., vi. 36. 5 Hist, eccl., iii. 15. 
6 Phil. iv. 3. 


summarizes what he has already said. Long ago Photius recognized 1 
the simplicity and clearness of his style. The name of Clement does 
not appear in the Letter; it presents itself, formally, as a writing of 
the Christian community at Rome. There can be no doubt, however, 
that it is the work of Clement, who wrote as the head and represen 
tative of the Roman community 2 . Quite decisive are the words of 
Dionysius of Corinth in his reply to a letter of Pope Soter 3 written 
about 170: To-day we have celebrated the Lord s holy day, in 
which we have read your Letter. From it, whenever we read it, 
we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former 
Letter which was written to us by Clement : COQ xal rqy rcporipav 
Tjtuv dia KkrjiJLZVToc, fpayzlaav, sc. imffToj^Vf Without naming him, 
St. Polycarp quotes Clement in his own Letter to the Philippians. 
The Letter of Clement was probably composed towards the end of 
the reign of Domitian (Si 96) or the beginning of that of Nerva 
(96 98). From the lost work of Hegesippus, Eusebius learned that 
the agitation and discord at Corinth which gave occasion to the 
Letter, arose in the time of Domitian 4 . In the history of Christian 
doctrine this communication to the Church of Corinth is very import 
ant as a de facto witness to the primacy of the Roman Church. 
The hypothesis that the Corinthians solicited the intervention of the 
Roman Church is incompatible with certain passages in the Letter 
(cc. i. i ; 47, 6 7). It may be added that the primitive authority 
of that Church shines out all the more clearly if it be accepted 
that it dealt unasked with the affairs of the Corinthian Church, in 
the conviction that the restoration of order was a duty incumben 
upon it. 

The Letter to the Corinthians, and the so-called Second Letter to the 
same, have come down to us in two Greek manuscripts, the Codex Hiero- 
solymitanus of 1056 ( 6, 4; 7, 4) and the so-called Codex Alexandrinus, 
the latter being the well-known fifth-century biblical codex of the British 
Museum at London. In the latter manuscript the text of both Letters, 
particularly that of the second, has reached us in a very imperfect condition. 
The Codex Alexandrinus has been reproduced in photographic facsimile: 
Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus, vol. IV. New Testament and Cle 
mentine Epistles, London, 1879. A similar photographic reproduction 
of the text of Clement as found in the Codex Hierosolymitanus (fol. 
5i v 76 r ) may be seen in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I (1890), 
i. 421 474. A very old and very literal Latin version of the first Letter 
was edited by G. Morin from a codex of the eleventh century, Mared- 
sous, 1894 (Anecdota Maredsolana, ii). Cf. A. Harnack in Sitzungsberichte 
der kgl. preufi. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1894, pp. 261 273, 
601 621; E. Wolff lin in Archiv fiir latein. Lexikographie und Grammatik 
(1894), ix. 81 100 ; H. Kihn in Theol. Quartalschrift (1894), Ixxvi. 

1 Bibl. cod., p. 126. 

2 Ens., Hist, eccl., iii. 38, I. St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15. 

3 Ens., ib., iv. 23, n. 4 Ib., iii. 16; iv. 22, I. 


540 549. An ancient Syriac version of both Letters is met with in a 
Cambridge manuscript of 1170; the more important readings were publish 
ed by Light f o ot , St. Clement of Rome, an Appendix, London 1877, 
pp. 397 470; cf. Id., The Apostolic Fathers, parti (1890), i. 129 146. 
The complete text was published by R. L. Bensly, or rather after his death, 
by R. H. Kennet, London, 1899. The editio princeps of both Letters is 
that of P. Junius (Young), Oxford, 1633, 2. ed. 1637, whence Cotelier 
took them for his edition of the Patres aevi apostolici, Paris, 1672. Since 
then they are found in every edition of the Apostolic Fathers ( 4). Philo- 
theos Bryennios was the first to publish from the Codex Hierosol. the full 
text of both Letters. The most valuable edition is that of Lightfoot (f 1889), 
in the second edition of the first part of his Apostolic Fathers published 
at London, 1890, after his death. The first Letter was also edited by 
R. Knopf, Leipzig, 1899 (Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. i.) and 
in the first volume of the first series of the Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum 
edited by S. Vizzini, Rome, 1901. German translations of both Letters 
have been published recently by Karger, Schalz, and Mayer ( 4). Among 
the English translations see that of Lightfoot , St. Clement of Rome, An 
Appendix (1877), 345 390; cf. The Apostolic Fathers, i (1890), ii. 271 316. 
From the literature on the First Epistle to the Corinthians we quote : R. A, 
Lipsius , De dementis Romani epistola ad Corinthios priore disquisitio, 
Leipzig, 1855. A. Briill , Der erste Brief des Clemens von Rom an die 
Korinther und seine geschichtliche Bedeutung, Freiburg, 1883. W. Wrede, 
Untersuchungen zum ersten Clemensbrief, Gottingen, 1891. L. Lemme, Das 
Judenchristentum der Urkirche und der Brief des Clemens Romanus, in Neue 
Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theol. (1892), i. 325480. G. Courtois, L fipitre 
de Clement de Rome (These), Montauban, 1894. J. P. Bang, Studien iiber 
Clemens Romanus, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1898), Ixxi. 431 486. 
Cf. Ad. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xx, new series, v. 3 (1890), 
70 80. B. Heurtier, Le dogme de la Trinite dans 1 Epitre de St. Clement 
de Rome et le Pasteur d Hermas (These), Lyon, 1890. A. Stahl, Patristische 
Untersuchungen, i. Der erste Brief des romischen Clemens, Leipzig, 1901. 
W. Scherer , Der erste Clemensbrief an die Korinther nach seiner Bedeu 
tung fur die Glaubenslehre der kathol. Kirche am Atisgang des i. Jahrhun- 
derts, Regensburg, 1902. For_the style and diction of the Letter cf. Wehofer 
op. cit. ( 7, 4). E. Dor sch, Die Gottheit Jesu bei Clemens von Rom, in 
Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (1902), xxvi. 466491. J. Tunnel, Etude sur 
la Lettre de St. Clement de Rome aux Corinthiens, in Annales de philos. 
chretienne (1903), Mai, 144160. A. van Veldhuyzen, De tekst van z. g. 
eersten Brief van Clemens aari de Korinthiers, in Theol. Studien (1903), i. 
i 34. B. Schweitzer, Glaube und Werke bei Clemens Romanus, in Theol. 
Quartalschrift (1903), Ixxxv. 417437, 547575- 

the manuscripts (Greek and Syriac), likewise in the printed editions, 
the Letter to the Corinthians is followed by another work, usually called 
the Second Letter to the Corinthians. The character of its contents is 
very general: the Christian must lead a life worthy of his vocation, 
must prefer the promises of the future to the joys of the present, must 
be conscious of the necessity of doing penance etc. It is first mention 
ed by Eusebius^ as purporting to be the Second Letter of Clement. 
Since the fifth century it circulated among the Greeks and Syrians as 

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 38, 4; cf. St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15. 


the Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Eusebius himself had 
some suspicion that it could not be the work of Clement. It is now 
generally admitted that internal and external criteria make it clear that 
the document belongs to the middle of the second century, if not to 
a somewhat later date. When the full text was published in 1875, it 
became evident that it was not a letter, but a sermon (cf. cc. 15. 2; 
17. 3; 19. i). This fact is enough to refute a former hypothesis, 
recently defended by Harnack, that in this writing we possess the 
Letter of Pope Soter (166174) to the community of Corinth, other 
wise known to us only through the fragments of the reply of Dio- 
nysius, bishop of that city 1 . It is probable, moreover, that this 
sermon was preached, not at Rome but at Corinth (c. 7. I 3). 

For the manuscript-tradition, editions, and versions of the so-called Se 
cond Letter to the Corinthians, see above, p. 26. H. Hagemann , Uber 
den zweiten Brief des Clemens von Rom, in Theol. Quartalschrift (1861), 
xliii. 509 531. Ad. Harnack, Uber den sog. zweiten Brief des Clemens 
an die Korinther, in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1876 1877), i. 264 283, 
329 364. Id., Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i 438 450. Funk, Der 
sog. zweite Clemensbrief, in Theol. Quartalschr., Ixxxiv. (1902) 345 364. 
R. Knopf, Die Anagnose zum zweiten Clemensbriefe, in Zeitschrift fiir die 
neutestamentl. Wissensch. 1902, iii. 266 279. 

4. THE TWO LETTERS TO VIRGINS. Two Letters in Syriac have 
come down to us under the name of Clement. Both are address 
ed to Virgins, i. e. to unmarried persons or ascetics of both sexes; 
their purpose is to demonstrate the excellence of the state of vir 
ginity, and also to furnish rules of conduct whereby to avoid the 
perils of that condition. Cotterill discovered (1884) in the Pandects 
of the Palestinian monk Antiochus (c. 620) lengthy fragments of a 
Greek text of both Letters. There is every probability that the Greek 
text is the original from which the Syriac version was made. The 
earliest traces of the Letters are in Epiphanius -. Their evident op 
position to the Subintroductae makes it probable that they were 
written in the third century, perhaps in Syria or Palestine. It is 
clear from Epiphanius (1. c.) that in the fourth century they were 
held there in great esteem. As the conclusion is lacking to the 
first and the introduction to the second, it is very probable that 
originally the two Letters were one document. 

The Syriac text of the two Letters was found by J. ?. Wetstein in a 
Peschitto-Codex of the New Testament, of the year 1470, and edited by him 
at Leyden in 1752 with a Latin version. A reprint of the Syriac text of 
Wetstein is found in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., i., and in Migne , PG., i. 
P. Zingerle published a German translation at Vienna, 1827. The Syriac 
text was re-edited, with a Latin version, by J. T/i. Beelcn, Louvain, 1856. 
This Latin translation is found, with corrections, in Funk, Opp. Patr. 
Apostol., ii. i 27. Cf. J. M. Cotterill, Modem Criticism and Clement s 

1 FMS., Hist, eccl., iv. 23, 10 12; ii. 25, 8. 

- Haer., xxx. 15; cf. St. Jer., Adv. Jovin., i. 12. 


Epistles to Virgins (first printed 1756) or their Greek version newly dis 
covered in Antiochus Palaestinensis, Edinburgh, 1884. Ad. Harnack, Die 
pseudo-clementinischen Briefe De virginitate und die Entstehung des Monch- 
tums, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 
1891, pp. 361 385. D. Volter, Die Apostolischen Vater neu untersucht. 
Part i. : Clemens, Hennas, Barnabas. Leyden, 1904. - 

9. Ignatius of Antioch. 

I. TRADITION OF THE SEVEN EPISTLES. - - Ignatius, called also 
Theophorus, the second or (if we include St. Peter) the third bishop 
of Antioch 1 , was exposed to wild beasts at Rome 2 under Trajan, 
i. e. between 98 and ii/ 3 . He was taken from Antioch to Rome 
in the custody of soldiers, and on the way wrote seven Letters to 
the Christians of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, 
Smyrna, and to Polycarp, bishop of the latter city. The collection 
of these Letters that lay before Eusebius* has been lost; but later 
collections of Ignatian Letters have been preserved, in which much 
scoria is mixed with the pure gold. The oldest of these, usually 
called the Long Recension, contains seven genuine and six spurious 
Letters, but even the genuine ones do not appear in their original 
form; they are all more or less enlarged and interpolated. The spurious 
Letters are those of a certain Maria of Cassobola to Ignatius, his reply, 
and Letters from him to the people of Tarsus, Philippi, Antioch, and 
to the deacon Hero of Antioch. This recension is extant in the original 
Greek, and in an ancient Latin version. It seems certain that we 
owe to one and the same hand the forgery of the spurious Letters, 
the interpolation of the genuine ones, and the union of all in the Long 
Recension. The forger was an Apollinarist, for he twice denies that 
the Redeemer possessed a human soul (Philipp. v. 2. Philad., vi. 6). 
According to the researches of Funk, he is very probably identical with 
the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions that were put together in 
Syria early in the fifth century. Later on, a Laus Heronis was added 
to this collection, i. e. a panegyric of Ignatius in the form of a prayer 
to him made by Hero, very probably written in Greek; it has reached 
us only in a Latin and a Coptic (Lower Egyptian or Memphitic) text. 
Somewhere between this Long Recension of the Ignatian Letters 
and the collection known to Eusebius is a third collection that has 
also reached us in Greek and Latin. It contains the seven genuine 
Letters in their original form, and also the six spurious ones, with the 
exception of the Letter to the Philippians; it has been recently called 
by Funk, and not improperly, the Mixed Collection. In this collection 
the (genuine) Letter to the Romans is incorporated with the so-called 

1 Orig., Horn. vi. in Luc. ; Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 22. 

2 Orig., ib. ; Eus., ib. iii. 36, 3. 

3 Eus., Chron. post an. Abr. 2123. 

4 Hist, eccl., iii. 36, 4 ff. 


Martyrium Colbercinum, a document that closes the collection, and 
pretends to be the account given by an eye-witness of the martyrdom of 
St. Ignatius. Closely related to this collection is another that has reached 
us only in Armenian; it too has the seven genuine and the six spurious 
letters. Its original is a Syriac text now lost. Similarly, there has 
been preserved in Syriac an abbreviated recension of the three genuine 
Letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. Finally we 
must mention four Letters preserved in Latin : two from Ignatius to 
the Apostle John, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply. 
These four Letters may be traced back to the twelfth century; very 
probably they are of Western origin. 

It is clear from the preceding that the authentic text of the seven 
genuine Letters must be gathered from the Mixed Recension ; whose Greek 
original is represented in a single codex that is, moreover, incomplete - 
the Mediceo-Laurentianus of the eleventh century, preserved at Florence. 
The Letter to the Romans is lacking in this manuscript, but is found (as 
a part of the Martyrium Colbertinum) in the tenth century Codex Colberti- 
nus (Paris). Two other codices are now known, but they present no sub 
stantial variation; cf. Funk, Patres Apostolici, 2. ed., torn. ii. Ixxii sq. 
However, even the ancient Latin translation in the Mixed Recension may 
lay claim to the value of a Greek text. In addition, the text of the 
Syro-Armenian collection and that of the Long Recension merit conside 
ration. There are several Greek codices of the latter; among which the 
Codex Monacensis (olim Augustanus) of the tenth or eleventh century 
must be regarded as the chief. J. Voss was the first to edit the original 
text of the genuine Letters, with the exception of that to the Romans, 
Amsterdam, 1646. Th. Ruinart published the text of the latter from the 
Martyrium Colbertinum, Paris, 1689. The text in Migne, PG., v. 625 728 
is taken from Hefele, Opp. Patr. apostol. (3. ed. Tiibingen, 1847). The 
most recent and best editions are those of Zahn, Ignatii et Polycarpi 
epistulae, martyria, fragmenta (Patr. apostol. opp. Rec. O. dc Gebhardt, 
Harnack , Zahn, fasc. ii), Leipzig, 1876; Funk, Opp. Patr. apostol., i., 
Tiibingen 1878, 1887, 1901; Ligktfoot , The Apostolic Fathers, Part ii: 
St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, London 1885, 1889, 2 vol. Lightfoot s 
edition presents most fully all ancient ecclesiastical tradition concerning 
the Letters. (Ignatii Antiocheni et Polycarpi Smyrnaei epistulae et mar 
tyria, edidit et adnotationibns instruxit A. Hilgenfdd , Berlin, 1902. 
Cf. also Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae in the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum of 
Vizzini, series I, vol. II, Roma, 1902.) See 4 for the latest English and 
German versions of the genuine Letters. There is an English version in 
Lightfoot, ib. ii. 539570, and in J. H. Srawley, London, 1900, 2 vol. 
A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ignatiusbriefe und die neueste Verteidigung ihrer Echt- 
heit, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theologie (1903), xlvi. 171 194. Id., 
ib. 499505. T. Nicklin, Three Passages in SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, 
in Journal of Theological Studies (1902 1903), iv. 443. A. N. Jannaris, 
An Ill-used Passage of St. Ignatius (ad Philad. viii. 2), in Classical Review 
(1903), xviii. 24- 35. J. Drdseke , Fin Testimonium Ignatianum, in Zeit- 
schrift fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi, 506 512. The Greek text 
of the Long Recension was first edited by V. Hartung (Frid), Dillingen, 
1557. The text of Migne , op. cit. v. 729941 is taken from Cotelerius, 
Patres aevi apost. t. ii. For new editions cf. Zahn, op. cit. pp. 174 296; 
Funk, op. cit. ii. 46 213; Lightfoot, op. cit. ii. 709 857. 


For the author of the Long Recension, his theological tendencies, and 
his identity with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, see Funk, 
Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen, Rottenburg, 1891, pp. 281355. Id., 
Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 347 
to 359 i C Hohhey , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1898), Ixxx. 380 390; 
A. Amelungk, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1899), xlii. 508 581; 
(to the contrary: F. X. Funk, Theologie und Zeit des Pseudo-Ignatius, in 
Theol. Quartalschr. [1901], Ixxxiii. 411 426, and Id., Le Pseudo-Ignace, 
in Revue d hist. ecclesiast. [1900], i. 61 65). A. Sta/it, Patristische Unter 
suchungen, II: Ignatius von Antiochien, Leipzig, 1901. The Latin text of 
Laus Heronis is in Migne, PL. v. 945 948; cf. Zahn p. 297; Funk ii. 
214; Light/cot ii. 893. Light foot gives the prayer in a Lower Egyptian 
or Memphitic version (p. 88if.), and attempts a reconstruction of the 
Greek text (p. 893 f.). For the Latin version of the Long Recension see 
Zahn p. 175 296; Funk ii. 47 213. The Latin version of the Mixed 
Recension is in Funk,, Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe aufs neue 
verteidigt, Tubingen, 1883, p. 151 204, and in Lightfoot ii. 597 652. 
P. de Lagarde published both Latin versions at Gottingen, 1882. The 
Lightfoot edition contains (ii. 659 687) the Syriac abbreviated recension 
of the three Letters to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, first 
made known in 1845 ^7 ^ Cureton; it also contains some stray Syriac 
fragments of the genuine Letters in their original form, edited by W. Wright. 
For earlier editions and recensions of these Syriac texts see E. Nestle, 
Syrische Grammatik (Berlin, 1888), ii. 54, s. v. Ignatius Antiochenus. The 
Armenian version, derived from the Syriac, was first published at Con 
stantinople in 1783. It also appeared at Leipzig in 1849, in y. H. Peter- 
manris edition of the Ignatian Letters. The four Letters extant in Latin 
only are found in Migne, PL., v. 941 946; Zahn pp. 297 300; Funk 
pp. 214 217; Lightfoot, ii. 653 656. (Ad. Harnack , Zu Ignatius und 
Polycarp, in Miscellen [Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. 3] 
[Leipzig, 1900], pp. 80 86.) 

2. CONTENTS OF THE LETTERS. On his way to martyrdom Ignatius 
probably embarked at Seleucia for some port in Cilicia or Pamphylia; 
thence, as his Letters bear witness, he was taken by land through 
Asia Minor. At Smyrna there was a somewhat lengthy halt, and he 
met there the envoys from several Christian communities of Asia Minor 
come to express their veneration for the confessor of the faith. To 
the representatives of Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, Ignatius gave 
Letters for those communities, in which, after making known his gra 
titude, he warned them to beware of heretics (Judaizers and Docetae, 
or rather, perhaps, Judaizing Docetae). He also exhorts them to be 
joyfully submissive to the ecclesiastical authorities. Be ye careful to 
do all things in divine concord flv opowia rou tisouj. This, because 
the bishop presides in the place of God, and the priests are as the 
senate of the Apostles, and the deacons . . . have confided to them 
the ministry of Jesus Christ (Magn., 6. i). Let all reverence the 
deacons as Jesus Christ, and also the bishop ; for he is the image of 
the Father, but the priests as the senate of God and the college 
of the Apostles. Without these (ecclesiastical superiors) one cannot 
speak of a church (Trail, 3. i). A fourth Letter was sent by Ignatius 


from Smyrna to the Christians ,of Rome, to induce them to abandon 
all attempts to prevent the execution of his death-sentence. I fear 
that your love will cause me a damage (i. 2). For I shall not 
have such another occasion to enter into the possession of God (2. i). 
I am the wheat of God, and I must be ground by the teeth of 
wild beasts that I may become the pure bread of Christ (4. i). 
The preamble of this Letter offers many difficulties. However, when 
he calls the Roman community (ixxtyaia) the npoxa&yplvy TTJQ dfaTrqe, 
it is clear that these words do not signify first in charity or in the 
exercise of love, but rather presiding over the society of love , i. e. 
the entire Church. The word d-fairy often signifies in Ignatius the 
entire community of Christians. - - From Smyrna he went to Troas 
where he was met by a messenger of the Church of Antioch with 
the news that the persecution of the Christians had ceased in that 
city. From Troas he wrote to the Christians of Philadelphia and 
Smyrna, and also to Polycarp, the bishop of the latter city. In the first 
two Letters he expresses his thanks for the evidences of their love, 
recommends the sending of messengers to congratulate those of Antioch 
on the restoration of peace, and exhorts and warns them against the 
heretical ideas already mentioned. I cried out (at Philadelphia) with 
a loud voice, with the voice of God : hold fast to the bishop, to 
the presbytery, to the deacons (Philad., 7. i). Wherever the bishop 
is, there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the 
Catholic Church (Smyrn., 8. 2; it is here that we first meet with the 
words Catholic Church in the sense of the entire body of the 
faithful). Ignatius meant to request the other communities of Asia 
Minor to express, by messenger or letter, their sympathies with the 
Christians of Antioch, but was prevented by an unexpected and hasty 
departure from Troas; he therefore asks Polycarp to appeal in his 
name to those communities of Asia. From Troas he \vent to Neapolis, 
crossing on his way Macedonia and Illyria. It was probably at Dyr- 
rhachium (Durazzo), or at Apollonia, that he began his sea-voyage. 
From Brindisi he travelled afoot to Rome, where according to the 
unanimous evidence of antiquity he reached the goal of his desire. 
His literary remains are the outpouring of a pastoral heart, aflame 
with a consuming love for Jesus Christ and His Church. The style 
is original and extremely vivacious, the expression sonorous and often 
incorrect, while the strong emotions of the writer interfere frequently 
with the ordinary forms of expression. Very frequently he reminds 
us of certain epistles of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

Th. Dreher, S. Ignatii episc. Antioch. de Christo Deo doctrina (Progr.), 
Sigmaringen, 1877. J. Nirschl , Die Theologie des hi. Ignatius, Mainz, 
1880. y. H. Newman, The Theology of St. Ignatius, in Hist. Sketches I 
(London, 1890), v. 222 262. E. Freiherr v. d. Goltz, Ignatius von An- 
tiochien als Christ und Theologe, Leipzig, 1894 (Texte und Untersuchungen, 



xii. 3). E. Bruston , Ignace d Antioche, ses epitres, sa theologie, Paris, 
1897. The term KpoxafhjjievT) TTJ* aya-^c, in the inscription of the Letter to 
the Romans, is discussed by Ad. Harnack , in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. 
prenft. Akad. der Wissensch. (Berlin, 1896), in 131; J. Chapman, in 
Revue Bene dictine (1896), xiii. 385 400; Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche 
Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (Paderborn, 1897), i. i 23. (Cf. also 
the superficial and antiquated sketch of R. Mariano, II Primato del 
Pontefice romano istituzione dtvina ? and L Epistola ai Romani d Ignazio 
d Antiochia, in his II Cristianesimo nei primi tre secoli [Scritti vari, iv v.], 
Firence, 1902, pp. 390 403.) 

3. AUTHENTICITY. For centuries the authenticity of the Ignatian 
Letters has been disputed. The successive discovery and publication 
of the collections and recensions described above caused the question 
to pass through many phases, while the incomparable value of the 
evidence that the Letters, if authentic, give concerning the constitu 
tion and organization of the primitive Christian communities continually 
fed the flame of discussion. Although it cannot be said that there 
is at present an absolute harmony of opinion, the end of the contro 
versy is at hand, since even the principal non-Catholic scholars, Zahn, 
Lightfoot, Harnack, unreservedly maintain that the Letters are 
authentic. The evidence for their authenticity is simply overwhelming. 
Irenaeus himself refers to a passage of the Letter to the Romans 
(c. 4. i) in the following words 1 : Quemadmodum quidam de nostris 
dixit propter martyrium in Deum adiudicatus ad bestias. The ro 
mance of Lucian of Samosata, De morte Peregrini, written in 167, 
agrees to such an extent with the Letters of Ignatius, both as to 
facts and phraseology, that the coincidence seems inexplicable 
except on the hypothesis that Lucian made a tacit use of these 
Letters. A significant phrase in the Letter of the Church of Smyrna, 
apropos of the death of Polycarp (c. 3) , has always recalled an 
expression in the Letter to the Romans (c. 5. 2). Polycarp him 
self says in his Letter to the Philippians: The Letters of Ignatius 
that he sent to us, and such others as we had in hand, we have 
sent to you, according to your wish. They are added to this Letter. 
You will find them very useful; for they contain faith and patience 
and much edification relative to Our Lord. These words, written 
shortly after the death of Ignatius, are so final and decisive that the 
opponents of the authenticity of the Ignatian Letters are obliged to 
reject the Letter of Polycarp as a forgery, or at least to maintain 
that the passages concerning Ignatius are interpolated. They have 
sought to counterbalance external evidence by objections drawn from 
the Letters themselves. They argue that the portrait of the bishop 
of Antioch as presented in these Letters, has been disfigured by the 
addition of impossible features; that heresy was neither so important 
a matter nor so fully developed in the time of Ignatius; above all, 

1 Adv. haer., v. 28, 4. 


that the ecclesiastical constitution exhibited in the Letters has at 
tained a maturity which is really met with only in a later period. It 
is true that in these Letters the bishop is exhibited, in language of 
almost surprising precision, as distinct from the presbyters; that the 
monarchical, and not the collegiate or presbyteral, constitution of 
the Church is set forth as an accomplished fact. But if Irenaeus 
could compile a catalogue of the bishops of Rome that goes back to 
the Apostles 1 , it becomes impossible to maintain that the episcopate 
began only with the second century. Nor can it be said that the 
Letters were forged in the interest of episcopal power; the episcopate 
is set forth in them as something well-established and accepted, of 
whose legitimacy no one doubts. Still less can an argument be 
drawn from the history of heresy; the heretic Cerinthus flourished 
in the life-time of the Apostle John. All search for the traces of a 
polemic in these Letters against the Gnosis of Valentinian has 
proved fruitless. Finally, the pretended lack of naturalness in the 
person of Ignatius would become a positive mystery if such a figure 
had been created by a forger. 

Not long after the discovery of the Mixed Recension the Anglican 
y. Pearson successfully vindicated the authenticity of the Seven Letters. 
(Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672, Oxford, 1852; Migne, 
PG., v. 37 473) against the Reformer jf. Dallaeus (De scriptis quae sub 
Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur , Genevae, 
1666). After editing (1845) the Syriac text of the three abbreviated 
Letters to the Ephesians, Romans, and Polycarp, W. Cureton published a 
quite untenable apology for them as the genuine Letters of Ignatius. He 
maintained that the longer form of the same in the Mixed Recension 
was the work of an interpolator, and the remaining four simply forgeries 
(Vindiciae Ignatianae, London, 1846). For the more recent literature cf. 
J.Nirschl, Das Todesjahr des hi. Ignatius von Antiochien und die drei orien- 
talischen Feldzlige des Kaisers Trajan, Passau, 1869. Th. Zahn, Ignatius von 
Antiochien, Gotha, 1873. In his Geschichte der altchristlicnen Literatur, 
ii. i, 381 406, Ad. Harnack abandoned, as antiquated, the hypothesis of 
his earlier work: Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig, 1878), in which he had 
attempted to place the death of Ignatius about 138. F. X. Funk, Die Echt- 
heit der Ignatianischen Briefe aufs neue verteidigt, Tubingen, 1883. W. D. 
Killen, The Ignatian Epistles entirely spurious, Edinburgh, 1866. R. C. 
Jenkins, Ignatian Difficulties and Historic Doubts, London, 1890. D. Volter, 
Die Ignatianischen Briefe, auf ihren Ursprung untersucht, Tubingen, 1892. 
y. Rtville, Etudes sur les origines de 1 episcopat. La valeur du temoignage 
d Ignace d Antioche, Paris, 1891. Id., Les origines de 1 episcopat, Part, i 
(Paris, 1894), 442520. L. Tonetti, II Peregrinus di Luciano e i cristiani 
del suo tempo, in Miscellanea di storia e coltura eccles. (1904), 72 84. /c/. 

r y 

10. Polycarp of Smyrna. 

I. HIS LIFE. -- Irenseus has preserved some precious details con 
cerning Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to whom Ignatius wrote one 
of his seven Letters. Irenaeus had listened, as a boy, to the dis- 

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 3. 


courses of the old bishop, and had heard him tell of his relations 
with John (the Apostle) and with others who had seen the Lord, and 
how he quoted from their language, and how much he had learned 
from them concerning the Lord and His miracles and teaching J . At 
the end of 154 or at the beginning of 155 Polycarp visited Rome, 
in the hope of coming to an understanding with Pope Anicetus 
concerning the manner of the celebration of Easter, but neither could 
Anicetus move Polycarp to give up his custom, which he had always 
observed with the Apostle John, the disciple of Our Lord, and with 
the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, nor could Polycarp 
move Anicetus to adopt that custom, the latter declaring that he was 
bound to keep up the customs of his predecessors (rwv -po adroo 
TcpsafiuripcDv). Nevertheless, they preserved communion with one 
another, and in order to do him honour, Anicetus caused Polycarp to 
celebrate the Eucharist in his church, and they parted in peace 2 . 
Not long after this incident Polycarp died the death of a martyr 
at Smyrna in his eighty-sixth year. In an Encyclical Letter the com 
munity of Smyrna made known to all Christians his death and the 
circumstances of his martyrdom. From its context (c. 21; cf. 8, i) 
we can ascertain with approximate certainty that Polycarp died Fe 
bruary 23., in 155. 

Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons und der 
altkirchl. Literatur (1891), iv. 249283; (1900), vi. 94109. (K. Bihl- 
meyer, Der Besuch Polykarps bei Anicet und der Osterfeierstreit, in Katholik 
[1902], i. 314 327.) Concerning the date of Polycarp s death, cf. Harnack, 
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1897), ii. i, 334 356. P. Corssen , Das 
Todesjahr Polykarps, in Zeitschr. fiir neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 
6 1 82. For the encyclical letter of the community of Smyrna, cf. 59, 2. 

2. LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS. -- Irenaeus speaks of Letters sent 
by Poly carp partly to neighbouring communities to confirm them (in 
the faith), partly to individual brethren to instruct and exhort them 3 . 
On another occasion he writes: There is a very excellent fixavcoTdrq} 
letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, from which the form of his faith 
and the teaching of truth can be seen by those who are of good will 
and intent on their salvation 4 . Only fragments of the original Greek 
have reached us, but we possess the entire text in an old Latin trans 
lation. It is a word of comfort written at the request of the com 
munity of Philippi in Macedonia, and encourages all its members to 
constancy ; it inculcates, moreover, the special duties of married people, 
of widows, deacons, youths, virgins, and the clergy. This Letter of 
Polycarp is full of imitations and reminiscencies of the Letter of 
St. Clement to the Corinthians (c. 9, 2; 13, 2). As late as the end 

1 Iren., Ep. ad Florin., in Eus., Hist. eccl. v. 20, 6. 

2 Iren., Ep. ad Viet., in Ens., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 16 sq. 
a Hist, eccl., v. 20, 8. 4 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 4. 


of the fourth century some communities af Asia Minor were wont 
to read it during divine service *. Some recent writers have disputed 
its authenticity or denied its integrity, but only with the object of 
crippling its value as an evidence of the authenticity of the Ignatian 
Letters (cf. 9, 3). Its authenticity is guaranteed by Irenaeus; nor 
can the .distinction between a genuine nucleus and later accretions 
be upheld, in view of the striking unity of its style, and its constant 
dependence on the Letter of St. Clement. 

The Greek codices of the Letter to the Philippians are all, directly or 
indirectly, copies of one exemplar; all end at c. 9, 2, with the words xai 
6t Tjfj-a? 6r:6. The rest of the Letter (cc. 10 14) is taken from an old 
Latin translation, itself very carelessly made. However, the Greek text of 
chapters 9 and 13 has been preserved in the Church History of Eusebius 2 . 
The Latin translation was edited by y. Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1498. The 
Greek text (c. i 9) was first edited by P. Halloix, Douai, 1633. The 
Greek text in Migne (PG. , v. 10051016) is taken from Hefele, Opp. 
Patr. apost. , Tubingen, 1847. The most important recent editions are 
those of Zahn, Leipzig, 1876; Funk, Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901 ; Light foot, 
London, 1885, 1889; (Hilgenfeld, Berlin, 1902; Vizzini, in the Bibliotheca 
Sanct. Patrum, series ii, vol. ii, Rome, 1901; cf. 4; 9, i). Zahn re 
translated into Greek the part that has reached us in Latin only. His 
translation has been improved by Funk in some places. Lightfoot executed 
a new re-translation. New editions of the old Latin version (PG. , v. 
1015 1022) are found in Zahn 1. c., also in Funk, Die Echtheit der 
Ignatianischen Briefe, Tubingen, 1883, pp. 205 212. Cf. A. Harnack, Zu 
Polycarp ad Philipp. ii. , in Miscellen (Texte und Untersuchungen , new 
series, v. 3), pp. 8693. For new versions of the Letter to the Philippians 
see 4. (T. Nicklin, Three Passages in SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, in 
Journal of Theological Studies [1902 1903], iv. 443.) Funk, Die Echtheit 
der Ignat. Briefe, 1442: Der Polykarpbrief. The hypothesis of an 
interpolation proposed by A. Ritschl (Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 
2 ed., Bonn, 1857, 584600), was accepted by G. Volkmar, in his Epist. 
Polyc. Smyrn. genuina, Zurich, 1885, and in Theol. Zeitschrift aus der 
Schweiz (1886), iii. 99111, also by A. Hilgenfeld , in Zeitschrift fur 
wissenschaftl. Theologie (1888) , xxix. 180206. J. M. Cotterill found 
citations from this Letter in the Pandects* of the Palestinian monk Anti- 
ochus (c. 620) whereupon he declared Antiochus to be the author of the 
Letter of Polycarp ; cf Journal of Philology (1891), xix. 241285. This 
discovery did not merit the honour of the solid refutation from the pen of 
C. Taylor, ib. (1892), xx. 65110. (J. Turmel, Lettre et martyre de Saint 
Polycarpe, in Annales de philosophic chret. [i904[ 22 33.) 

3. LATIN FRAGMENTS. -- Five small Latin fragments, current under 
the name of Polycarp, treat of certain Gospel texts; they are, according 
to all appearances, spurious. 

These fragments were published by Fr. Feuardent in the notes to his 
edition of Irenaeus (Cologne 1596, reprinted 1639). They were taken by 
him from a Latin Catena on the four Gospels. The compiler of the Ca 
tena, now lost, had found these fragments in a work of Victor, bishop of 
Capua (f 554). Other recensions of these fragments are in Migne (1. c. 

1 St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 17. 2 iii. 36, 13 15. 


v. 1025 1028), Zahn (1. c. 171 172), and Lightfoot (1. c. 1001 1004), 
Funk, Patres apostolic! (1901), ii. 288 sq. In his Geschichte des neu- 
testamentl. Kanons, i. 782 f., Zahn undertook to defend their authenticity, 
with the exception of one phrase. 

ii. The Shepherd of Hernias. 

I. CONTENTS. The longest, and for form and contents the most 
remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, is the 
Shepherd (notp.ijv, Pastor) of Hennas. It contains five Visions (bpd- 
aeiq, visiones), twelve Commandments (ivroXai, mandata), and ten 
Similitudes (xapapoXai , similitudines). This triple division is only 
external, and does not affect the contents. Hermas himself, or the 
angel who speaks to him, seems in the last Vision (v, 5) to 
distinguish two parts : the preceding Visions (i iv) that the Church, 
in the guise of a Matron, exhibits to the author, and the subsequent 
Mandates and Similitudes expounded to Hermas by an angel of penance 
in the garb of a Shepherd. The true sign of demarcation is the organ 
of revelation, first the Matron and then the Shepherd (Sim. ix. i, 
i 3). It is the prominence of the latter in the second part of the work 
that justifies its peculiar title. It is true that he also appears in the 
first part of the book, but in a subordinate role and not in the 
Shepherd s guise (cf. Vis. ii. 4, i; iii. 10, 7). All the revelations 
made to Hermas end with exhortations to penance, directed first to 
himself and the members of his family, then to the Roman Church, 
and to all Christians. This call to the penitential life is justified 
throughout by the imminent persecutions of the Church, and the near 
coming of Christ in Judgment. The general outline of the work is 
found in the first four Visions. The Matron, representative of the 
Church, grows constantly younger, until she appears in the fourth 
Vision as a bride who comes forth in splendour from the nuptial 
chamber. Both the manner of the Matron s appearance, and the re 
creations and instructions that she gives, exhibit a steady progress 
of penitential exhortation. The third Vision is by far the most 
important. It presents the Communion of Saints, i. e. those who 
are baptized and remain faithful to the grace of baptism, whether 
yet living or already departed, under the image of a great tower 
rising from the water and built of square and shining blocks. Those 
who through sin have lost their baptismal grace, are represented by 
the stones that lie scattered about, and which must be trimmed and 
polished before finding a place in the tower. The Mandates and 
Similitudes to which the fifth Vision serves as an introduction are 
destined to realize and explain the first part (cf. Vis. v. 5 ; Sim. ix. 
i, i 3). The Mandates have for object faith in one God (i), simpli 
city (ii), truthfulness (iii), chastity both in and out of matrimony (iv), 
mildness and patience (v), the discernment of suggestions made by 


the good and the bad angels (vi), fear of the Lord (vii), temperance 
(viii), confidence in God (ix), forbearance from sorrowfulness (x), 
avoidance of false prophets (xi), and warfare against evil desires (xii). 
The figurative diction of the Similitudes recalls the Visions. The 
first is a warning against excessive solicitude for temporal goods; 
the second is an exhortation to charity; the third and fourth exhibit 
good and evil, dwelling together for the present, to be separated at 
the end of time; the fifth extols the merits of fasting; the sixth 
the necessity of penance ; the seventh explains the uses of tribulation ; 
in the eighth and the ninth the branches of the willow tree and the 
stones of the tower serve as illustrations of the truth that through 
penance the sinner may once again come into living communion with 
the Church, and thereby secure a place in the glorified Church of 
the future. The tenth ends with these words: Through you the 
building of the tower has been interrupted; if you do not make 
haste to do good, the tower will be finished, and you will remain 
without (Sim. x. 4, 4). In diction and exposition the book is diffuse 
and minutely circumstantial; at the same time it is popular and 
picturesque. Its chief characteristic is its apocalyptic form and tone. 
The dogmatic interest of the work lies chiefly in its teaching con 
cerning the possibility of forgiveness of mortal sins, notably adultery 
and apostasy (cf. Vis. iii; Sim. viii ix). It is only during the 
period of grace announced by him that the Shepherd admits a for 
giveness of sins by penance (i^ru.voiav ajuapucov, Mand. iv. 3, 3); in 
all future time there shall be but one forgiveness of sins through 
baptism (IJLZTU.VOW. /jtta, Mand. iv. I, 8; 3, 6). The still open way of 
penance is said to be long and difficult (Sim. vi viii). The Shepherd 
is the earliest witness to the Stations or degrees of penitential 
satisfaction (Sim. v, I, I. 2). 

2. ITS ORIGIN. The author of the Shepherd frequently calls 
himself Hermas (Vis. I. I, 4; 2, 2), nor does he add to that name 
anything more definite. He lived in very modest circumstances at 
Rome where he cultivated a field in the vicinity of the city (Vis. iii. 
i, 2; iv. i, 2). It was there, on the road from Rome to Cumse, 
that he received the revelations of the Matron. At the end of the 
second Vision, there is a statement of especial interest. Hermas is 
commissioned by the Matron to make known her revelations to all 
the elect. Make ready , she says, two copies, and send one to 
Clement, and one to Grapte. Clement will send it (the little book) 
to the cities that are without; Grapte will instruct the widows and 
the orphans; but thou wilt read it in this city to the priests who 
are placed over the Church (Vis. ii. 4, 3). Grapte seems to have 
been a deaconess. Clement is represented as Pope; he is the head 
of the Roman Church, and it is his duty to conduct its communi 
cations with other churches. Hermas is certainly speaking of Cle- 


ment of Rome ( 8), and refers very probably to the Letter of 
Clement to the Corinthians that was highly esteemed by the primitive 
Christian churches. Hennas presents himself, therefore, as a con 
temporary of Clement. Now, the author of the Muratorian Fragment 
says (in Zahn s recension): Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus 
nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente (in) cathedra urbis 
Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus; et ideo legi eum quidem 
oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas 
completes numero neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. 
However difficult and obscure these words may be, it is very clear 
that the author of the Fragment wishes to exclude the Shepherd 
from the canon of biblical writings, because he is no other than the 
brother of Pope Pius I (c. 140 ^55). Modern critics are practically 
unanimous in agreeing with the author of the Fragment; there is, 
indeed , no good reason for rejecting his evidence. It is true that 
the author of the Shepherd is thereby declared guilty of a deceit; 
he was not a contemporary of Clement, for he did not write his 
work before 140 155. That the Shepherd was written about the 
middle of the second century, though not absolutely certain, is 
highly probable, and certain intrinsic evidence confirms it. The 
special predilection of the author for the question of forgiveness of 
mortal sins, and his diffuse treatment of the subject, suggest that 
he was aware of the Montanist movement, at least in its beginnings. 
He is an opponent of the Gnostics (Vis. iii. 7, I ; Sim. viii. 6, 5 ; 
ix. 22, I : DiAovrsc, Tidvra ftvcocrxsw xal oudsv 0X0)0, fwaHrxouffi). The 
persecution of the Christians to which he several times refers as 
having ceased, cannot be that of Domitian (8196); it must there 
fore be that of Trajan (98 117). The subsequent long period of 
peace, during which the zeal of many Christians grew deplorably 
cold (Vis. ii. 2 3), was surely the reign of Antoninus Pius (138 161). 
Finally, the Christianity to which Hermas addresses himself, has al 
ready grown old; laxity and secularism have set in; it is clearly 
necessary to renew ecclesiastical discipline, particularly as to the 
restoration of apostates to the communion of the Church. In these 
dismal traits it is impossible to recognize the Church of the first 
century. Some modern scholars have denied that the Shepherd is 
from the hand of one author. De Champagny postulates two, Hilgen- 
feld three; their hypotheses have found few followers. The constant 
similarity of style and vocabulary, of tendency and situation, bears 
evidence to the original unity of the work. We must not, however, 
look on it as composed at one sitting; rather was it put together 
piecemeal, and grew to its present size by the gradual juxtaposition 
of smaller writings (Vis. v. 5; Sim. ix. i, i ff; x. I, i). Funk has 
shown that there is no foundation for Spitta s imaginary discovery 
of a Jewish work as the basis of the Shepherd. 


3.- HISTORY OF THE WORK. Irenaeus introduces 1 a quotation 
from the Shepherd with the significant formula sixey /] TP a( P ^- Cle- 
ment of Alexandria made considerable use of the work and seems 
to have appreciated it highly. Origen thought the author identical 
with the Hermas of Romans xvi. 14, and says expressly that he con 
siders it a divinely inspired work 2 : quae scriptura valde mihi utilis 
videtur et, ut puto, divinitus inspirata. Yet he was aware that it 
was not generally admitted as such 3 , and that some treated it with 
contempt 4 . Therefore, he adds to his quotation the qualifying phrase : 
si cui tamen scriptura ilia recipienda videtur. Even in the fourth 
century it was looked on in Egypt and in Palestine as a manual 
quite suited to the instruction of the catechumens 5 . Its reputation 
passed aw-ay quicker in Italy and Africa. In the former country 
the author of the Muratorian Fragment is very positive in his rejection 
of it (see above p. 38). About the end of the second century, it must 
have been widely held in the Western Church that the work had no 
canonical authority, and deserved only limited confidence. Only 
thus can w r e find some explanation for the attitude of Tertullian who 
held the Shepherd to be scriptura while he was a Catholic 6 , but 
when he became a Montanist, could thus address Pope Callixtus: 
Cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino 
instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum, 
etiam vestrarum, inter apocrypha et falsa iudicaretur. 7 Thenceforward 
interest in the Shepherd dwindled away in the west, and it passed 
so thoroughly out of general use that St. Jerome could say that 
it was almost unknown among the Latins; apud Latinos paene 
ignotus est 8 . 

4. TEXT-TRADITION AND EDITIONS. The first to discover a codex of 
the Greek text of the Shepherd was the well-known forger C. Simonides 
(f 1867). The manuscript was discovered by him at Mount Athos and dates 
from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Three folios of this codex, and a 
very untrustworthy copy of the remainder, made by Simonides, belong 
since 1856 to the University of Leipzig. The conclusion of the \vork is 
lacking (Sim. ix. 30, 3 x. 4, 5). This manuscript, or rather its Lipsian 
copy, was edited by Tischendorf in Dressel s edition of the Apostolic 
Fathers (Leipzig, 1857, 1863) and separately ib. 1856. (Simonides had sold 
to the Leipzig Library, not a correct copy of the manuscript, but one 
interpolated by himself, with the help of an old Latin version of the 
Shepherd known as the Vulgata, and some quotations from the Greek 
Fathers. His text was published as genuine, Leipzig, 1856, by R. Anger 
and W. Dindorf. The deceit was at once laid bare , and in the same 
year the Library acquired a correct copy of the manuscript.) The Codex 
Sinaiticus ( 7 , 4) contains the first part of the Shepherd (about one 

1 Adv. haer., iv. 20, 2. - Comm. in Rom., x. 31. 

3 Comm. in Matth., xiv. 21. 4 De principiis, iv. 1 1. 

5 Athan., Ep. fest. 39 an. 365 ; Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 6. 

6 De oratione, c. 16. 7 De pudic., c. 10; cf. c. 20. 
8 De viris illustr., c. 10. 


fourth; as far as Mand. iv. 3, 6). With the aid of the Leipzig manuscript, 
the Codex Sinaiticus, and a more or less thorough use of such other 
helps as translations and citations, several editions of the Shepherd soon 
appeared: Hilgenfeld, Leipzig, 1866, 2. ed. 1881 ; v. Gebhardt and 
Harnack , Leipzig, 1877; Punk, Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901; cf. 4. 
y. Drdseke published in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1887), xxx. 
172 184, the conclusion of the Shepherd, from Sim. ix. 30, 3 to the end, 
in a Greek text that was based on a work of Simonides: Opftooo ^ov C EX- 
XTQVWV deoXoftxal ypacpa! Tsssapsj, London, 1859. Hilgenfeld soon followed 
with an edition of the entire Greek text, Leipzig, 1887. Unfortunately 
this Greek conclusion of the Shepherd is a forgery of Simonides, as Funk 
has demonstrated in Theol. Quartalschrift (1888), Ixx. 51 71. A more exact 
knowledge of the Athos codex can be found in Lambros and Robinson: 
A collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hennas by Spyridion 
P. Lambros; translated and edited by J. A. Robinson, Cambridge, 1888. 
Lambros reproduced two pages of the Codex, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 
(1893), ii. 609 if. Two small (very imperfect) fragments of the Greek text 
(Sim. ii. 7, 10; iv. 2 5) are preserved in a papyrus-roll belonging to the 
Berlin Museum. For a fac-simile of the text cf. U. Wilcken, Tafeln zur alteren 
griechischen Palaographie , Leipzig, 1891, Plate iii. See also JDiels and 
Harnack, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. d. Wissensch., Berlin, 
1891, 427 431 ; A. Ehrhard, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv, 294 303. 
Until 1856, only one ancient Latin translation was known, published at 
Paris in 1513 by J. Faber Stapulensis. It is usually called the Vul- 
gata, to distinguish it from the one mentioned below. The last edition of 
it was published by Hilgenfeld, Leipzig, 1873. Its numerous codices are 
described by v. Gebhardt and Harnack in their edition of the Greek text 
(Leipzig, 1877), pp. xiv xxii; cf. H.Delehaye, in the Bulletin critique (1894), 
pp. 1416, concerning a new manuscript of the same. J. van den Gheyn, 
Un manuscrit de 1 ancienne version latine du Pasteur d Hermas, in Museon, 
new series (1902), iii. 274 277. A second Latin translation, the so-called 
Palatina, was published by Dressel m his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, 
Leipzig, 1857 (1863), from a Codex Palatinus mine Vaticanus, of the four 
teenth century. It was incorporated, with important corrections, in Gebhardt 
and Harnack s edition of the Greek text, Leipzig, 1877. As to the text of this 
version cf. Funk, in Zeitschrift fiir die 6 sterreich. Gymnasien (1885), xxxvi. 
245 249. It is generally admitted that the Vulgata version dates from the 
second century, and that the Palatina was made with the aid of the Vulgata 
in the fifth. For a different opinion cf. J. Haussleiter , De versionibus 
Pastoris Hermae latinis (Diss. inaug.), Erlangen, 1884. An Ethiopic trans 
lation derived from the Greek, made probably in the sixth century, was 
published by A. d Abbadie, Leipzig, 1860 (Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde 
des Morgenlandes, ii. i). G. H. Schodde, Herma Nabi: The Ethiopic version 
of Pastor Hermae examined, Leipzig, 1876 (Diss. inaug.), is a superficial 
and unreliable work. 

5. RECENT LITERATURE. For German and English translations of the 
Shepherd, cf. 4. There is an English translation by Fr. Crombie in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ii. 323435. E. Gadb, Der Hirt 
des Hernias. Ein Beitrag zur Patristik, Basel, 1866. Th. Zahn, Der Hirt 
des Hermas untersucht, Gotha, 1868. G. Heyne, Quo tempore Hermae 
Pastor scriptus sit (Diss. inaug.), Regiomonti, 1872. H. M. Th. Behm, 
Uber den Verfasser der Schrift, welche den Titel Hirt fiihrt, Rostock, 
1876. J. Nirschl, Der Hirt des Hermas. Eine historisch-kritische Unter- 
suchung, Passau, 1879. A - Brilll , Der Hirt des Hermas nach Ursprung 
und Inhalt untersucht, Freiburg, 1882. R. Schenk, Zum ethischen Lehr- 


begriff des Hirten des Hermas (Programm), Aschersleben, 1886. A. Link, 
Christ! Person und Werke im Hirten des Hermas (Diss. inaug.) , Mar 
burg, 1886. Id. , Die Einheit des Pastor Hermae, ib., 1888. P. Baum- 
gartner , Die Einheit des Hermas-Buches , Freiburg, 1889. E. Hilckstadt, 
Der Lehrbegriff des Hirten. Ein Beitrag zur Dogrnengeschichte des 
2. Jahrh., Anklam, 1889. C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four 
Gospels, London, 1892. F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Ur- 
christentums. Vol. ii. Der Brief des Jakobus: Studien zum Hirten des 
Hermas, Gottingen, 1896. Against Spitta cf. Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1899), Ixxxi. 321 360. D. Volter, Die Visionen des Hermas, die Sibylle 
und Clemens von Rom, Berlin, 1900. H. A. v. Bakel , De Compositie 
van den Pastor Hermae (Proefschrift) , Amsterdam, 1900 (the latter two 
maintain with Spitta a Jewish basis of the Shepherd). U. Benigni , II 
Pastore di Erma e 1 ipercritica , in Bessarione, IV (1899 1 9)> v l- vl - 
pp. 233 248. B.Heurtier, Le dogme de laTrinite dans 1 epitre de S. Clement 
de Rome et le Pasteur d Hermas, Lyon, 1900. J. Reville, La valeur du 
temoignage historique du Pasteur d Hermas, Paris, 1900. A. Stahl, Patri- 
stische Untersuchungen, vol. i. iii. Der Hirt des Hermas, Leipzig, 1901. 
P. Batiffol, Hermas et le probleme moral au second siecle, in Revue biblique 
(1901), x. 337 351. y. Leipoldt, Der Hirt des Hermas in saidischer Uber- 
setzung, in Berliner Sitzungsberichte (1903), pp. 261 268. J. Benazech, 
Le prophetisme chretien, depuis les origines jusqu au Pasteur d Hermas 
(These), Cahors, 1901. Batiffol, fitudes d histoire et de theologie positive, 
Paris, 1902, pp. 45 68. Funk, Zum Pastor Herma, in Theol. Quartalschr., 
(1903), Ixxxv. 639- 640. The Christology of Hermas is treated by Funk 
in his second edition (1901) of the Apostolic Fathers, i. cxxxix CXLIII. 
V. Schweitzer, Der Pastor Hermae und die Opera supererogatoria, in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1904), Ixxxvi. 539 556. 

12. Papias of Hierapolis, 

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a hearer of the Apostle John and 
friend of Polycarp of Smyrna \ wrote, apparently about 130, Expla 
nations of the sayings of the Lord (AO^ KOV xup .axcov i^r^ff^tQ) in 
five books 2 . Some small fragments of them have reached us through 
citations and narrations of later writers as Irenseus and Eusebius. 
Prescinding from the hypothesis (postulated by the opening words in 
Eusebius) 3 that these sayings were taken not only from the Gospel- 
text but also from oral tradition, the character of the work cannot 
be determined with certainty. Eusebius is surely wrong when from 
these same words he concludes, against Irenseus , that Papias did 
not know the Apostles, and that the presbyter* John, whose con 
temporary he declares himself to be, was another than the Apostle 
John. The traditions handed down by Papias concerning the origin 
of the first two Gospels are well-known and have given rise to much 
controversy 4 . Eusebius believed Papias to be a man of very limited 
mental powers, who accepted many things that pertained to the 
domain of fable (poftixwrspa) , especially a millenarian reign of Christ 

1 Iren., Adv. haer., v. 33, 4. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 39, i. 

3 Ib., iii. 39, 34. 4 Ib., iii. 39, 1516. 


on earth beginning with the resurrection of the just, a belief that he 
acquired through incapacity to comprehend the figurative expressions 
of the apostolic writers 1 . 

For the latest trace of the work of Papias cf. G. Bickell, in Zeitschrift 
fur kath. Theol. (1879), m - 799 803. The fragments of Papias may be 
found in M. J. Routh , Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed. (Oxford, 1846 1848), i. 
3 44 (Migne, PG., v. 1255 1262); Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. 
Theol. (1875), xviii. 231 270; Gebhardt and Harnack, Earnabae epist. 
(1878), pp. 87 104; Funk, Opp. Patrum apostol. (1881), ii. 276 300. 
Cf. Pitra, Analecta sacra (1884), ii. 155 161 ; C. de Boor, in Texte und 
Untersuchungen (1888), v. 2, 165 184; E. Preuschen, Antilegomena (Gieften, 
1901), pp. 54 63. The English translation of Roberts and Donaldson is 
in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), i. 153 155. Zahn, Papias von 
Hierapolis, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1866), xxxix. 649 696. Id., 
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 2, 849 903; ii. 2, 790 797. Id., 
Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1900), vi. 109 157. 
W. Weiffenbach, Das Papias-Fragment bei Eusebius (Kirchengeschichte, iii. 
39, 3 4), Giefien, 1874. Id. , Die Papias-Fragmente liber Markus und 
Matthaus, Berlin, 1878. C. L. Leimbach, Das Papias-Fragment (Bus., Hist, 
eccl.; iii. 39, 3 4), Gotha, 1875. A. Hilgenfeld, Papias von Hierapolis 
und die neueste Evangelienforschung, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. 
(1886), xxix. 257 291. A. Baumstark, Zwei syrische Papiaszitate, in Oriens 
Christianus 1902, pp. 352 357. Th. Mommsen, Papianisches, in Zeitschr. 
fiir die neutestamentl. Wissenschaft (1902), iii. 156 159. Ad. Harnack, 
Pseudo-Papianisches, ib. pp. 159 166. 




13. Preliminary Observations. 

If the ecclesiastical literature of the second century wears an ex 
clusively apologetic air, this results, quite naturally, from the circum 
stances of that period. The Christians are opposed by the Jews as 
strangers (dXX6<pu)iot), and are persecuted by the heathens 2 . Calumnies 
of every kind (concubitus Oedipodei, epulae Thyesteae, Onocoetes), 
and the ridicule and mockery of eminent writers like Lucian and 
Celsus, prejudiced and irritated public opinion against the Christians. 
The mob was stirred to violent outbreaks of hate by the heathen 
priests, magicians of every kind, and Jews. The antique state, with 
whose framework polytheism was intimately interwoven, saw itself 
daily more and more impelled by the instinct of self-preservation to 
undertake a campaign of extermination against the Christians. 

It was amid these conditions that the writings of the Apologists 
arose. It is true that they are also more or less positive attacks 
on heathenism, in so far as they employ not only defensive but offen- 

1 Ib., iii. 39, ii 13. 2 Ep. ad Diognetum, 5, 17. 


sive weapons. In their exposition of the nature and contents of the 
Christian religion, they generally furnish only so much explanation 
as seems necessary to defend themselves from the calumnies and pre 
judices of their opponents. But since they also aim at setting forth 
the relations of Christianity to paganism, and appeal frequently to 
the germs of truth contained in the latter, they offer the first con 
tributions to the establishment of an harmonious fusion of the teachings 
of reason and those of revelation; thereby they prepared the way 
for theology or the science of faith. Although originally addressed 
to a heathen society, it was in Christian circles that from the beginning 
the apologists sought and found the majority of their readers. For 
mally, they usually imitate contemporary discourses, such as were 
then carefully worked out according to the rules of Greek rhetoricians 
or sophists, \vhose art had entered upon a kind of renaissance of fame 
and glory in the century of Hadrian and the Antonines. 

The writings directed against the Jews are much fewer in number. 
Those that have reached us are in the form of dialogues, and are 
less intent on the refutation of Jewish accusations against the Chris 
tians than on the confirmation of the latter in their conviction that 
the Law of Moses had only a temporary purpose and authority. The 
blossoms of the Old Law had reached their full fruitage in the New 

Complete editions of the Greek Apologists were brought out by F. Morellus, 
Paris, 1615 (reprinted Paris, 1636; Cologne 1686); the Benedictine Pru- 
dentius Mar anus, Paris, 1742 (reprinted Venice, 1747); J. C. Th. de Otto, 
Corpus apologetarum christianorum saec. II, 9 voll. , Jenae, 1847 1872 
(the first five volumes, containing the works of St. Justin Martyr, were re- 
published 18761881). The text of the Apologists in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. 
Patr., i. ii., and in Migne, PG., vi., is taken from the edition of Maranus. 
A valuable contribution to the textual criticism of these writings, from the 
pen of J. H. Noltes, is found in Migne (col. 1705 1816). 

Ad. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der griecmVchen Apologeten des 2. Jahr- 
hunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, etc. (Leipzig, 1882), i. 12. O. von Gcbhardt, Zur handschrift- 
lichen Uberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, ib. 1883, i. 3, 155 
to 196. Harnack and von Gebhardt have shown that, with the exception 
of the writings of St. Justin, the three books of Theophilus ad Autolycum, 
and the Irrisio of Hermias, the greater part of the manuscripts of the 
second and third century Greek Apologists that have reached us come 
down, directly or indirectly, from one (no longer perfect) prototype, the 
Arethas-Codex of the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris (cod. Par. gr. 451), 
written in the year 914, by commission of Arethas, bishop of Caesarea. This 
discovery has opened up a new horizon to the textual criticism of the 
Apologies. In the fourth volume of the Texte und Untersuchungen (1888 
1891 1893) are to be found editions of the Apology of Tatian by 
E. Schwartz , of the writings of Athenagoras by the same, and of the 
"Apology of Aristides by E. Hennecke. -- J. Donaldson, A Critical History 
of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to 
the Nicene Council, vol. ii. iii, The Apologists, London, 1866. //. Dem- 


bowski, Die Quell en der christlichen Apologetik des 2. Jahrhunderts, Part i: 
Die Apologie Tatians, Leipzig, 1878. G. Schmitt, Die Apologie der drei 
ersten Jahrhunderte in historisch-systematischer Darstellung, Mainz, 1890. 
y. Zahn, Die apologetischen Grundgedanken in der Literatur der drei 
ersten Jahrhunderte systematisch dargestellt, Wiirzburg, 1890. Cf. R. Ma 
riano, Le apologie nei primi tre secoli della Chiesa : le cagioni e gli effetti, 
in II Cristianesimo nei primi tre secoli (Scritti vari, v.), Florence, 1902, 
pp. 7 83. On the anti-Judaizing literature of the primitive Church , cf. 
Harnack, in Texteund Untersuchungen (1883), i. 3, 56 74; A. C.McGiffert, 
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, New York, 1889, pp. i 47. 

14. Quadratus. 

The most ancient Apology known to us is that of Quadratus, 
a disciple of the Apostles. It was written about 124, and was 
presented to the Emperor Hadrian on the occasion of a persecution 
of the Christians 1 . Quadratus is rightly identified with that disciple 
of the Apostles who was endowed with the gift of prophecy and was, 
to all appearances, a resident of Asia Minor 2 . St. Jerome errs when 
he identifies him 3 with Quadratus, bishop of Athens, who lived in 
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161 i8o) 4 . The sole extant fragment 
of the Apology of Quadratus is a citation in Eusebius 5 . 

For Quadratus and his Apology cf. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed., i. 
69 79; de Otto, Corpus apologetarum christ. (1872), ix. 333 341. See also 
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1900), 
vi. 41 53; Funk, Patres App. i. 376; Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. 
Literatur, i. 95 f. ; ii. i, 269 271 ; Bardenhewer in Kirchenlexikon viWetzer 
and Welte, 2. ed., x. 645647. 

15. Aristides of Athens. 

Until 1878 the Apology of Aristides of Athens mentioned by Eu 
sebius 6 was looked upon as hopelessly lost. In that year the Mechi- 
tarists of San Lazzaro (near Venice) published a fragment of an Ar 
menian translation of the same. In 1891 a complete Syriac trans 
lation was made known by Rendel Harris; contemporaneously a 
Greek revision of the text was edited by Armitage Robinson. The 
latter text, which has reached us in the seventh-century romance 
of Barlaam and Joasaph (cc. 26 27) 7 , offers many corrections, 
especially abridgments of the original. The Syriac translation has 
been accepted as a faithful and reliable witness of the original con 
cept of the Apology. The Armenian translation was also made from 
the Greek, although it deals quite freely with the original, as may 

1 Ens., Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2140: Hist, eccl., iv. 3, I 2. 
- Ib., iii. 37, i ; v. 17, 2. 

3 De viris illustr., c. 19: Ep. 70 ad Magnum, c. 4. 

4 E^^s., Hist, eccl., iv. 23, 3. 5 Ib., iv. 3, 2 

c Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2140: Hist, eccl., iv. 3, 3; cf. Hieron., De viris illustr., 
c. 20; Ep. 70, 4. 

7 Migne, PG., xcvi. 1108 1124. 


be seen from the two chapters (i 2) of the preserved fragment. 
From the inscription of the Syriac translation it seems fairly certain 
that the original was offered to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138 161). 
Eusebius, who seems not to have read it, believed that the Apology 
had been presented to Hadrian. The scope of the work is to prove 
that the Christians alone possess the true knowledge of God. After 
a brief exposition of the idea of God, as it is forced on the human 
mind by the study of nature (c. i), the author invites the Emperor 
to look out upon the world and examine the faith in God exhibited 
by the different races of humanity, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and 
Christians (c. 2). The Barbarians adore God under the form of 
perishable and changeable elements (cc. 3 7): earth, water, fire, 
the winds, the sun ; the Greeks attribute to their gods their own 
human frailties and passions (cc. 8 1 3) ; the Jews believe in one only 
God, but they serve angels rather than Him (c. 14). The Christians 
rejoice in the possession of the full truth, and manifest the same in 
their lives (cc. 15 17). The beautiful and highly emotional descrip 
tion of the Christian life closes 1 with a reference to their writings*. 
The work of Aristides offers only rare echoes of the biblical 
writings, to which may be added some more or less clear traces of 
the Didache ( 6) and of the Preaching of Peter ( 30, i). Specific 
Christian teachings are touched on very slightly, e. g. the Incarnation 
of the Son of God through a Hebrew Virgin (c. 2, 6) and the Second 
Coming of Christ in Judgment (c. 17, 8). There are extant in Ar 
menian two other fragments that bear the name of Aristides : a homily 
on the appeal of the (Good) Thief and the reply of the Crucified 
One (Luke xxiii. 42 f.), and some lines of a Letter to all philosophers 
by the philosopher Aristides. In spite of the favourable opinion 
of Zahn and Seeberg, the homily is not to be accounted authentic, 
while the pretended epistolary fragment seems no more than an 
enlarged citation from the Apology. 

The Armenian fragment of the Apology and the Armenian homily 
were published by the Mechitarists under the title: S. Aristidis philosophi 
Atheniensis sermones duo, Venice, 1878. Both pieces were translated into 
German by Fr. Sasse, in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (1879), m - 6l2 6l8 
(cf. p. 816), and by Fr. v.Himpel, in Theol. Qtiartalschr. (1880), Ixii. 109 127. 
A new edition of these Armenian texts, including the fragment of the Letter, 
was brought out by P. Martin in Pitra, Analecta sacra, torn, iv., Paris, 1883, 
Armenian text pp. 6 n, Latin translation pp. 282 286; cf. Proleg. 
pp. x XT. J. Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robinson published the Syriac 
version of the Apology from a codex of the sixth or seventh century, found 
in the monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai , also the Greek re- 
cension, in Texts and Studies edited by J. A. Robinson, i. i, Cambridge 
1891, 1893. From another manuscript Harris translated into English (ib. 
pp. 2933) the Armenian fragment of the Apology. See D. M. Kay, 
The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, translated from the Greek and from 

1 c. 16, 3, 5 ; cf. 15, i; 17, i. 


the Syriac Version in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed 1885), ix. 263 279. 
German translations of the Syriac version were made by R. Raabe, in Texte 
imd Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1892), ix. i, and by J. Schonf elder , in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv. 531 557. Attempts to reconstruct the Greek 
original of the Apology have been made by R. Seeberg, in Zahn s Forschungen 
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (Erlangen, 1893), v. 159 414 (con 
tains comprehensive and thorough researches), and by Hennecke, in Texte 
imd Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1893), iv. 3. Cf. Hennecke, Zur Frage nach der 
urspriinglichen Textgestalt der Aristides-Apologie, in Zeitschrift fur wissen- 
schaftl. Theol. (1893), ii. 42 126. Seeberg published, Erlangen 1894, a 
complete edition of the writings of Aristides. L. Lemme , Die Apologie 
des Aristides, in Neue Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theol. (1893), ii. 303 340. 
F. Lauchert, Uber die Apologie des Aristides, in Internat. Theol. Zeitschrift 
(1894), ii. 278 299. P. Fetter, Aristides-Citate in der armenischen Literatur, 
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 529 539. In his Forschungen zur 
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (Erlangen, 1893), v. 415 437, Zahn 
defends the authenticity of the homily and the fragment of the Letter. 
P. Pape, in Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1894), xii. 2, holds both 
to be spurious. 

16. Aristo of Pella. 

The earliest Christian participant in the literary conflict with 
Judaism seems to have been Aristo of Pella (a town of the Decapolis 
in Palestine). Between 135 and 175 he published a small treatise 
entitled A Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ 
(Idaovoo, xal Hantcrxo j avrdofca xspl Xptaroo) *. In this work Jason, a 
Jewish Christian, proved so conclusively the fulfilment of the Messianic 
prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth that his opponent, the Jew Papiscus, 
begged to be baptized. There are traces in Origen (1. c.) of the con 
tents of the work (now lost to us), also in the extant introduction or 
Epistola nuncupatoria of an ancient Latin translation that has also 
perished 2 . The time of its composition may be approximately 
fixed: Celsus cites it (Origen 1. c.) in his work against the Christians, 
written about 178. On the other hand, in a work whose title and 
contents are unknown to us, but which was very probably our Dia 
logue, Aristo of Pella makes mention of the issue of the Barkochba 
rebellion (132135)8. The first to claim this work for Aristo of 
Pella was Maximus Confessor *. 

The testimonia antiquorum and the fragments are found in Routh, 
Reliquiae sacrae, i. 91109; de Otto, Corpus apolog. christ., ix. 349 
ad 363. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 9295 ; ii. i, 268 f. 
P. Corssen and Th. Zahn treat of the Dialogue of Aristo in their re 
searches on the sources of the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Chri- 
stiani, by Evagrius, in which text Harnack saw (1883) a translation or 
revision of the Dialogue of Aristo; cf. 96, i. In two Greek dialogues of 

1 Orig., Contra Celsum, iv. 52. 

- Ad Vigilium episcopum de iudaica incredulitate, in Opp. S. Cypr. (ed. Hartel], 
iii. 119 132. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 6, 3. 

4 Scholia in Dion. Arcop., De myst. theol., c. I. 


the fourth or fifth century, first edited by him, Conybeare believes that 
he can recognize a recension of the work of Aristo : Fr. C. Conybeare, 
The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zachaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, 
Oxford, 1898 (Anecd. Oxon., classical series, viii). For the text of the latter 
dialogue cf. D. Tamilia , De Timothei Christian! et Aquilae ludaei dia- 
logo, Rome, 1901. 

17. Justin Martyr. 

1. HIS LIFE. - - The habitual title of philosophus et martyr was 
first applied to Justin by Tertullian 1 . He calls himself the son of 
Priscus, the son of Bacchius, of Flavia Neapolis , i. e. the ancient 
Sichem (modern Nablus) in Palestine 2 . He may have been born in 
the first decade of the second century; his parents were heathens 3 . 
He relates of himself that in his youth he was devoured by the 
thirst of knowledge and went from one philosophical school to 
another, visiting in turn the Stoics, the Peripatetics, the Pythagoreans, 
and the Platonists. After a lengthy stay with the latter he eventually 7 
found in Christianity the object of his desires 4 . His conversion took 
place before the last Jewish War (132 135), perhaps at Ephesus 5 . 
As a Christian he clung to his peripatetic life, continued to wear 
the philosopher s mantle 6 , and defended Christianity, by his speech 
and his writings, as the only reliable and serviceable philosophy 7 . 
He spent considerable time at Rome, founded a school there, and 
convicted of ignorance the philosopher Crescens 8 . In the same 
city most probably he sealed his faith with his blood. According 
to the Acts of St. Justin his death took place under Junius Rusticus, 
Prefect of the City, between 163 and 167. 

C. Semisch, Justin der Martyrer. Eine kirchen- und dogmengeschicht- 
liche Monographic, Breslau, 1840 1842, 2 voll. y. C. TJi. Otto, in Encyclo 
pedia of Ersch and Gruber, Sect, ii., part 30, Leipzig. 1853, pp. 39 76. 
Ch.E.Freppel, St. Justin, Paris, 1860, 3. ed. 1886. Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr. 
fur Kirchengesch. (18851886), viii. 37 66. For the Acta SS. Justini et 
sociorum cf. 59, 4. C. Bertani , Vita di S. Giustino, Monza, 1902. 
A. Z. Feder S. J., Justins des Martyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus, dem 
Messias und dem menschgewordenen Sohne Gottes. Eine dogmen- 
geschichtliche Monographic, Freiburg, 1906. 

2. ins WRITINGS. Justin is the most eminent of the apologetic 
writers of the second century. Indeed, he is the first of the Fathers 
to develop a comprehensive literary activity. He opposed with zeal 
not only heathenism, but also Judaism and heresy. The manuscript- 
tradition of the writings he has bequeathed us exhibits many defects 
and gaps. Most of his writings are lost, while many writings that 

1 Adv. Valent., c. 5. 2 Apol., i. I. 

3 Dial, cum Tryphone, c. 28. 4 Ib., c. 28; cf. Apol., ii. 12. 

5 Dial, cum Tryph., c. I 9 ; cf. Eus.. Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 6. 
c Ib., iv. n, 8; cf. Just., Dial. c. I. 7 Dial. c. 8. 

8 Acta S. Justini, c. 3; Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. ii, ii; Apol., ii. 3. 


falsely bear his famous name have been preserved. Only three of 
the works current under his name have withstood the touchstone of 
criticism : the two Apologies, and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. 

The Arethas-Codex ( 13) contains only the spurious Epistola ad Zenam 
et Serenum (see below p. 54) and the equally spurious Cohortatio ad Gen 
tiles (p. 53). Two other independent collections of the writings of Justin 
have reached us: the former Codex Argentorat. 9 (saec. xiii. or xiv.) 
destroyed in the siege of Strasburg (1870), and the (more copious but 
very much damaged) Codex Par. 450 (of the year 1364). All other 
copies of works of Justin, in so far as they have been studied , are re 
ducible to these three manuscripts; cf. Harnack , Die Uberlieferung der 
griechischen Apologeten des 2. Jahrh. ( 13), pp. 73 if. The first editor 
of the works of Justin, R. Stephanus (Paris, 1551), followed closely the text 
of Cod. Par. 450. The second editor, Fr. Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593), 
changed the order of the writings , and added to them the Oratio ad 
Gentiles (p. 51) and the Letter to Diognetus (p. 52) both having been 
in the meantime made known to the learned world by H. Stephanus (Paris, 
1592) from Cod. Argent. 9. The reader will find, in 13, mention of the 
editions of Morellus, Mar anus (Gallandi, Migne), and de Otto. The latter 
edition appeared at Jena, 1842 1843, in three octavo volumes, and later, as 
part of the Corpus apologetarum, voll. i v. 1847 1850, and 1876 1881. 

3. THE TWO APOLOGIES. - - In the Paris Codex (Gr. 450) of the 
year 1364, on w T hich is based the text of the two Apologies, the 
shorter, now known as the second, holds the first place. However, 
its repeated references to a prior Apology (ii. 468) show that it 
is really the second. Concerning the composition of the first Apo 
logy there has been no little discussion. Wehofer maintains that it 
is an oration disposed according to all the rules of contemporary 
rhetoric, notwithstanding an occasional wandering from the theme. Thus, 
there is a prooemium followed by a propositio, viz., that the name 
Christian cannot be condemned, since no evil can be proved against 
the Christians as such. In the first part of the dialogue (cc. 4 13), 
the refutatio, the author combats the accusations of impiety and civil 
enmity. In the second part (cc. 14 67), the probatio proper, he main 
tains that Christ, the founder of the Christian doctrine, is the Son of 
God; his principal arguments are drawn from the Jewish prophecies. In 
the peroratio he appeals to the imperial sense of justice and invokes as 
an example the edict of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus concerning the 
treatment of the Christians (c. 68). Rauschen denies any intentionally 
artistic construction, but admits a division into two parts. The first 
(cc. 4 12) is chiefly negative, and aims at rebutting anti-Christian 
calumnies; the second (cc. 1367) is more positive, and consists 
of an exposition and justification of the contents of the Christian 
religion. We learn from the uncertain and obscure inscription of 
the first Apology that it was dedicated to Antoninus Pius (138 161), 
his adoptive sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the Sacred 
Senate, and the entire Roman people. It describes as a philosopher 


and a friend of knowledge , not only Marcus Aurelius, but also 
Lucius Vertis, born in 130. It would seem from several indications 
that this work was composed between 150 and 155. Thus Marcion 
is described (cc. 26 58) as an apostle of the demon; Felix is 
mentioned as prefect of Egypt (c. 29), and it is stated (c. 46) that 
Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago. 

The second or shorter Apology owed its origin to a very recent 
event (%&eq dk xai -pcor^ c. i). Three Christians had been put to 
death by Urbicus, the Prefect of Rome, merely for their profession of 
the new religion. The fact is related by Justin, who adds to his story 
certain paragraphs of an apologetic character, and concludes by asking 
the Emperors (c. 1 5 ; cf. c. 2) to publish the writer s previous Apo 
logy and to command the observance of justice in dealing with the 
Christians. It has been found impossible to discover any dominant 
idea or rhetorical order in this document, which is certainly no more 
than a supplement or appendix of the first Apology, written also very 
shortly after the composition of that work (cf. the references 4 6 8). 
Urbicus was City-Prefect between 144 and 160; we must be content 
for the present with this approximate knowledge, it is impossible to 
ascertain the exact date. 

The two apologies were edited separately by J. W..J. Brann, Bonn, 
1830, 1860, 3. ed. by JR. Gutberlet, Leipzig, 1883; by G. Kriiger, Freiburg, 
1891 (Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen- 
schriften, i.), 2. ed. 1896. German translations of both have been made by 
P. A. Richard, Kempten, 1871 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), and H. Veil, Stras- 
burg, 1894 (with explanatory notes). For an English translation see Dods, 
Reith and Roberts, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), i. 163 302. 
For the date of composition and the relations between the two apologies 
cf. G. Kriiger, in Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1890), xvi. 579 593; J. A. 
Cramer, in Theol. Studien (1891), Ixiv. 317357, 401 436; B. Grundl, 
De interpolationibus ex S. Justini phil. et mart. Apologia secunda expungen- 
dis (Progr.), Augustae Vindel. , 1891. The hypercriticism of Grundl is 
refuted by F. Emmerich, De Justini phil. et mart. Apologia altera (Diss. 
inaug.), Minister, 1896. Th. M. Wehofer, Die Apologie Justins des Phil, 
u. Mart., in literarhistorischer Beziehung zum erstenmal untersucht, Rome, 
1897 (Romische Quartalschrift, Supplement 6). G. Rauschen, Die formale 
Seite der Apologien Justins, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1899), Ixxxi. I 88 206. 
A. Lebentopulos , II a xal (3 AroXoYia UTilp yptrrtavtov louativou cpiXoso ^ou 
/.at [AdcpTUpo? xal 6 xata TkiAXi^vcov AG^OC Aftavaariou TOO jisYaXou (Dissert.), 
Erlangen, 1901. 

4. THE DIALOGUE WITH THE JEW TRYPHO. This work too, has 
come down to us only in the Paris Codex of 1364, and is moreover 
in an imperfect state. It wants the introduction, and the dedication 
to a certain Marcus Pompeius (c. 141). Also from chapter 74 
a considerable fragment has dropped out. The work sums up a 
disputation held at Ephesus 1 (a fact very probably learned by Eusebius 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 6. 



from the lost introduction) during the then recent Jewish War (132 
to 135: Dial. i. 9). The interlocutors were Justin and the JewTrypho; 
the dialogue lasted for two days, and it is supposed that, correspondingly, 
the original work consisted of two books. With an artistic skill, that Zahn 
has finely brought out, the work includes both truth and fiction ; it is 
in part made up of real discussions between Justin and learned Jews, 
and is in part a free and original study. It is quite probable that 
the Trypho who represents Judaism is none other than the celebrated 
contemporary Rabbi Tarpho. In the introduction (cc. 28) Justin 
describes the genesis of his own philosophico-religious opinions; in 
the first part (cc. 10 47) he proves from the Old Testament that 
the ritual Law of Moses has been abrogated in favour of the new 
Law of Christ; in the second part (cc. 48 108) he makes it clear 
from the prophecies of the Old Testament that the adoration of 
Jesus does not conflict with the fundamental doctrine of Monotheism, 
the adoration of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; in the third 
part (cc. 109 141), he seeks to prove that the true Israel is to be 
found in all those who have accepted Christianity, since the days of 
the Apostles at Jerusalem ; to them belong the promises of the Old 
Covenant. In the Dialogue reference is made to the first Apology 
(c. 120); it must, therefore, have been composed after 150 155. 
Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch., viii. 37 66. 

5. LOST WORKS OF JUSTIN. In the Sacra Parallela of St. John 
Damascene are preserved three lengthy fragments of a work of Justin 
on the Resurrection (xepi,), in which are refuted Gnostic 
objections against the resurrection of the body, and the proofs and 
guaranties of this ecclesiastical doctrine set forth. There are also 
other fragments bearing the name of Justin, but they are too brief and 
disconnected to permit a judgment as to their authenticity and right 
to a place among the writings of Justin. He refers himself (Apol. i. 26} 
to a previous work against heretics (aw-cawa xara xaffwv TCOV ^c- 
yqpivtov alpsffeeavj ; as to its content we are reduced to conjectures 
based on other statements of Justin concerning heretics. St. Irenseus 
knew and used i a work of Justin against Marcion (ffuvrar/jta xpoQ Map- 
xiotva) ; according to some it was a fragment of the above-cited work, 
according to others a special treatise. Eusebius 2 is the earliest witness 
to the authorship of the following writings: a Discourse against the 
Greeks (MyoQ TupoQ "I lMyyag) in which he discusses at length most of 
the matters that are treated by us and by the Greek philosophers, and 
examines carefully the nature of the demons; another work addressed 
to the Greeks under the title Refutation* ftrepov xpo^EUrpaq o j r 
~/pa/2aa, ?, xai Ixifpwpsv lte r /w)\ a work on the unity of God faspl 
povapxiag) based not only on our own writings but also on 

1 Adv. haer., iv. 6, 2. * Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 3 ff. 


those of the Greeks ; a work entitled Psalter ((paArr^) ; a doctrinal 
treatise on the soul (ffjrohxnv xspi ^vyr^), in which he describes 
various researches concerning the problem of the soul and gives the 
views of the Greek philosophers, with his promise to refute them in 
another work wherein his own views shall be set forth . The titles 
of the first three of these writings are identical with those of three 
works preserved in the manuscripts of the writings of St. Justin: 
Oratio ad Gentiles (xpbc, ^EXkqvaQ), Cohortatio ad Gentiles (MfOQ 
TrapawsTtxoQ JtpoQ "EXXr/vaQ), and De monarchia (rcep} fteou tiovapyiat;). 
The five short chapters of the Oratio ad Gentiles, devoted to a very 
energetic and efficient refutation of the unreasonable and immoral 
mythology of Homer and Hesiod, cannot be attributed to Justin; 
the style of the work differs from his too widely. Yet the little 
treatise may possibly belong to the second century. At a later date 
a certain Ambrosius revised it; this revision has reached us in a Syriac 
translation. The Cohortatio ad Gentiles, a work in 38 chapters, under 
takes to demonstrate, in an elegant, smooth and flowery style, 
that whatever truth is found in the writings of the Greek sages, 
poets and philosophers, was taken by them from the sacred books 
of the Jews. Both in form and content this work offers a striking 
contrast to the genuine writings of Justin. Very probably, however, 
it was composed at the end of the second or the beginning of the third 
century, though at present opinions differ very widely as to its origin. 
The author of the six chapters De monarchia undertakes to prove 
the unity of God and the inanity of the gods, mostly by forged 
citations from the Greek poets, and with no reference to the Scrip 
tures. As the work is apparently complete in itself, it can hardly be the 
second part of the homonymous work of Justin referred to by Eusebius. 
Moreover, its diction differs notably from that of Justin. Possibly 
these three works were erroneously attributed to Justin by reason of 
above-mentioned statements of Eusebius. Possibly, too, Eusebius had 
before him works that wrongly bore the name of Justin. He says, 
expressly, that apart from the works mentioned by him very many 
other works circulated under the name of Justin. *. St. John Da 
mascene, Maximus Confessor, and Photius quote, indeed, still other 
works of Justin, but the sources of Christian literary tradition were by 
that time very deeply troubled 2 . 

Fragments that seem to have some claim to authenticity are collected 
in de Otto, Corpus apolog., iii. 210 265. On the fragments of De resur- 
rectione re-edited by K. Holl , in Texte und Untersuchungen (1899), xx. 
3649, new series, v. 2, see Zahn, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. , viii. 
20 37 i W- Bousset y Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Mart., Gottingen, 
1891, pp. 123 127. A later revision of the Oratio ad Gentiles was edited, 

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 8. 

2 Sacra Parallela ; Migne, PG., xci. 280; Bibl. Cod. 125. 


in Syriac and English, from a seventh-century manuscript by W. Cureton, 
Spicilegium Syriacum, London, 1855, pp. 38 42, 61 69. In Sitzungs- 
berichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 1896, pp. 627 646, 
Harnack made known a German translation of the Syriac version, by 
F. Baethgen , and added the original text of the Oratio, with corrections. 
The author of the Cohortatio ad Gentiles , according to E. Schurer 
(Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. [1877 l8 78], ii. 319 331) borrowed from the 
Chronography of Julius Africanus; he, therefore, belongs to the second 
quarter of the third century. D. Volter on the contrary, in Zeitschr. fiir 
wissensch. Theol. (1883), xxvi. 180 215, is of opinion that it was written 
about 1 80, and presumably by Apollinaris of Hierapolis. J. Draseke, in 
Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengeschichte (1884 1885), vii. 257 302, and Texte und 
Untersuchungen (1892), vii. 3 4, 83 99, thinks that its author was Apolli 
naris of Laodicea (f ca. 390), and that its original title was u-sp dX7}deiac T, 
Xo-yoc TcapaivsTtxoc ~pos "EXXrjvac. This line of thought was adopted by J. R. 
Asmus , in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1895), xxxviii. 115 155; 
(1897), xl. 268 284, and Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1895 1 896), xvi. 
45- 71, 220 252 ; he contends that in the Cohortatio Apollinaris of Laodicea 
is attacking the infamous scholastic ordinance of Julian the Apostate, made 
in 362 ; in turn, the Emperor was aiming at the Cohortatio in his work 
against the Christians. A, Puech, in Melanges, Henri Weil, Paris, 1898, 
395 406, places the date of the Cohortatio between 260 and 300. W. Wid- 
mann, Die Echtheit der Mahnrede Justins des Martyrers an die Heiden 
(Forschungen zur christl. Literatur und Dogmengeschichte), Mainz, 1902, 
iii. i (the Cohortatio is a genuine work of Justin). W. Gaul, Die Ab- 
fassungsverhaltnisse der pseudo-justinischen Cohortatio ad Graecos, Berlin, 
1902. For false accounts of the discovery of the work of Justin on the 
soul (~spl <!>o/rj?), mentioned by Eusebius, cf. H. Diels, in Sitzungsberichte 
der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch,, Berlin, 1891, pp. 151 153. 

6. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. Apart from the three works mentioned 
above (p. 52), several other works have reached us that are erroneously 
ascribed to Justin. We shall speak in 22 of the Letter to Diognetus. 
The Expositio fidei sen De Trinitate is a doctrinal exposition of 
the Trinity and of Christology that has reached us in two recensions 
of unequal length. Funk has shown, against Draseke, that the ori 
ginal recension is the longer one, and that it belongs to the fifth 
century, not to the time of Apollinaris of Laodicea. There exist at 
present some fragments of a revision of this work in Syriac and 
in Old-Slavonic. The Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum is an exhor 
tation and guide to Christian asceticism; according to a conjecture 
of Batiffol, it was written in the time of St. John Chrysostom by 
Sisinnius, the Novatian bishop of Constantinople. The Quaestiones 
et responsiones ad orthodoxos, a collection of 146 questions and answers 
of a miscellaneous theological nature, are a work of the fifth century 
(cf. Quaest. 71). Of the same date, perhaps, are the Quaestiones 
Christianorum ad Gentiles, apologetical studies concerning God and 
His relations to the world, and the Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christi 
anas, equally metaphysical and theological in contents, and supposed 
to be from the same hand. The Confutatio dogniatum quorundam 
Aristotelicorum is directed chiefly against some principles of Aristo- 


telian physics. There are also a few other small fragments of works 
wrongly attributed to St. Justin. 

y. Draseke has several times attempted to prove that the short recen 
sion of the Expositio fidei is a work of Apollinaris of Laodicea, in Zeitschr. 
fur Kirchengesch. (1883 1884), vi. i 45, 503 549; also Jahrb. fiir 
protest. Theol. (1887), xiii. 671 ff. He finally edited it under the latter s 
name, in Texte und Untersuchungen, vii. 34, 353 363, cf. 158 182. 
The thesis is utterly untenable ; as Funk has shown, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1896), Ixxviii, 116 147, 224 250. These articles are reprinted in Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 253 291. 
In Pitra s Analecta sacra, iv. ; Paris, 1883, P. Martin made known fragments 
of a Syriac revision of the Expositio fidei (Syriac text, pp. n 16, and 
Latin translation, pp. 287292). For the Old-Slavonic recension of the same, 
cf. N, Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 892 f. For the 
Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum cf. P. Batiffol , in Revue Biblique (1986), 
v. 114 122. The Quaestiones et responsa ad orthodoxos were edited once 
more by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, St. Petersburg, 1895, from a tenth-century 
codex, in which they are attributed to Theodoret of Cyrus. Cf. on them 
W. Ga/3, in Zeitschr. fiir die historische Theologie (1842), xii. 4, 35 154. 
Draseke , in Jahrb. fiir protest. Theol. (1884), x. 347352, believes that there 
are fragments of the writings of Apollinaris of Laodicea in the Fragmenta 
Pseudo-Justini published by de Otto, Corpus Apolog., v, 368 375. A. Harnack 
has vindicated for Diodorus of Tarsus the authorship of the Quaestiones et 
responsiones ad orthodoxos ; cf. his Diodor von Tarsus, Vier pseudojusti- 
nische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen (Texte und Unter 
suchungen, new series, vi. v), Leipzig, 1901. This work contains a German 
version of the first three writings and of the more important portions of the 
fourth: Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, Quaestiones Gentilium ad 
Christianos, Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles, and Confutatio dogmatum 
Aristotelis. If Harnack s arguments do not furnish a splendid and ir 
refutable demonstration, as F. Diekamp thinks, in Theologische Revue (1902), 
i. 53, they create at least a very strong probability in favour of Diodorus 
of Tarsus. Funk , Le pseudo-Justin et Diodore de Tarse, in Revue d his- 
toire eccle siastique (1902), iii. 947 971, thinks that the Quaestiones et 
responsa attributed by Harnack to Diodorus are not earlier than the 
middle of the fifth century. The statement which ascribes them to Theo 
doret of Cyrus needs closer investigation. 

agreement concerning the contents and structure of his writings is owing, 
in part at least, to a peculiar defect in the same: there is wanting in 
them an orderly movement of thought. Justin is an impressionist. 
He rarely tarries long enough to exhaust an idea, preferring to take 
up other threads before returning to his original theme. Thus, cor 
related subjects are scattered, and ideas which have little mutual 
affinity are brought together. Moreover, he pays slight attention to 
beauty of diction. His writings abound in solecisms and neologisms ; 
he delights in long periods and frequent participial construction; at 
times he falls into a rigid monotony that is positively fatiguing. 
At times, however, especially in dialogue, his diction takes on more 
life, exhibits a certain power and emotion, and even rises to a certain 


sublimity. As already indicated (p. 49), Justin continued to follow, 
after his conversion, the profession of philosopher. He is the first, and 
among the most eminent, of those Fathers who undertook to bring about 
a reconciliation between Christianity and pagan science. At the same 
time, it is only by a partisan distortion of his teaching that some modern 
writers, like Aube and von Engelhardt, find in it a strange mixture 
of Christian and pagan-philosophical elements, to which Platonism 
rather than Christianity, has lent both form and colouring. Justin is 
a Christian philosopher, thoroughly conscious that with his faith in the 
Son of God he has entered a new sphere of truth, has come to 
possess the fulness of truth. For him Christianity is the rule by 
which he measures the data of philosophy; it is, m all simplicity, 
the truth itself; hence in turn all truth is Christian (Apol. ii. 13). 
The same Word (Logos) who was manifested fully in Christ, is 
germinally (as Aofoq a^spfjLartxoq) in every human soul. In the measure 
of their participation in this Word of God, the philosophers and poets 
of antiquity were able to know the truth (Apol. ii. 8, 13). All those 
who have lived with the Word (o\ fjLzra. Myou ftiwffayreQJ were 
Christian, even though they were held to be atheists; such e. g. were 
Socrates, Heraclitus, and their peers among the Greeks; Abraham, 
Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Elias, and many others among the Barbarians 
(Apol. i. 46). It is through the Old Testament that other germs of 
truth (ffTtipfj-ara d/^ttziacj were made known to the Greeks. Plato 
borrowed from Moses the doctrine of moral freedom ; similarly it was 
from the Hebrew prophets that the Greek writers obtained such 
knowledge as they had concerning the immortality of the soul, 
future retribution, heaven, and the like (Apol. i. 44). Thereby the 
relation of pagan culture to Christianity was at least distinctly out 
lined. The faith of Christians, according to Justin, is found in the books 
of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophets : their words are for 
him the words of God, or the Logos, or the Holy Spirit (Apol. i. 33 
36 61). The Gospels he cites usually as memoirs of the Apostles 
(dxofjtv/jfjioyzufjLaTa ~cov &7toor( )hov) ; thereby he, at least, suggests that 
Christians held them for inspired and canonical books (dyafwatcrxsTai 
Apol. i. 67 ; -(iypa.-Ta.i Dial. c. 49). The Apocalypse is declareo^to be 
a divinely revealed book and written by the Apostle John (Dial. c. Si). 
There are also in Justin echoes of the Acts of the Apostles, of all 
the Pauline Epistles (excepting the Epistle to Philemon) , of the 
Epistle of St. James, the two Epistles of St. Peter, and the first 
Epistle of St. John. The account of Christian liturgical customs 
furnished by Justin (Apol. i. 61 ff.) is of very great importance; he 
oversteps in these paragraphs the limits of the Discipline of the Secret, 
and describes with much detail both baptism and the celebration of the 
Eucharist. No other Christian apologist imitated him in this disclosure 
of the greatest of Christian mysteries. 


B. Aube, Essai de critique religieuse. De 1 apologe tique chretienne ail 
II e siecle. St. Justin phil. et mart., Paris, 1861, 1875. * Weizsacker, Die 
Theologie des Martyrers Justinus, in Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1867), xii. 
60 119. M. v, Engelhardt, Das Christentum Justins des Martyrers. Eine 
Untersuchung liber die Anfange der katholischen Glaubenslehre. Erlangen, 
1878. Cf., against Engelhardt, A. Stahlin , Justin der Martyrer und sein 
neuester Beurteiler, Leipzig, 1880. J. Sprinzl, Die Theologie des hi. Ju 
stinus des Martyrers. Eine dogmengeschichtl. Studie, in Theol.-prakt. Quartal- 
schrift (1884 1886). C. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung 
des stoisch-christlichen Eudamonismus in Justins Apologie, Studien und 
Vorarbeiten, Leipzig, 1890. F. Bosse , Der praexistente Christus des Ju 
stinus Martyr, eine Episode aus der Geschichte des christologischen Dogmas 
(Dissert, inaug.), Greifswald, 1891. W. Flemming, Zur Beurteilung des Christen- 
tums Justins des Martyrers, Leipzig, 1893. K. L. Grube, Darlegung der 
hermeneutischen Grundsatze Justins des Martyrers (reprinted from Katholik), 
Mainz, 1880. Th. ZaJin , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1889), i. 2, 
463 585: Justinus Martyr und die Apostolischen Schriften. W. Bousset, 
Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Martyrers in ihrem Wert fiir die Evangelien- 
kritik von neuem untersucht, Gottingen, 1891. A. Baldus, Das Verhaltnis 
Justins des Martyrers zu unseren synoptischen Evangelien, Miinster, 1895. 
W. Bornemann , Das Taufsymbol Justins des Martyrers, in Zeitschr. fiir 
Kirchengesch. (1878 1879), iii. 127. J. Wilpert, Fractio panis, Freiburg, 
1895, PP- 4 2 ~65 : Die eucharistische Feier zur Zeit des hi. Justinus 
Martyr. The extraordinary assertion ofHarnack, in Texte und Untersuch. 
(1891), vii. 2, 115 144, that Justin taught bread and water to be the 
matter of the Blessed Eucharist has met with no acceptance. Cf. Th. Zahn, 
Brot undWein im Abendmahl der alten Kirche, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892; 
Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv. 643 659, and again in Kirchen- 
geschichtl. Abhandl. und Untersuch. (1897), i. 278 292; A. Jiilichcr , in 
Theol. Abhandl. C. v. Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 215 250. 
E. Lippelt , Quae fuerint Justini martyris i^OfiyTjuoveujj-aTa quaque ratione 
cum forma Evangeliorum syro-latina consenserint (Diss.), Halle, 1901. J. A. 
Cramer, Die Logosstellen in Justins Apologie kritisch untersucht, in Zeit- 
schrift fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1901), ii. 300338. Cramer 
maintains that the passages relative to the Logos are not from the pen 
of Justin, but were interpolated through the combination of the Apology 
with a Judseo-Christian work of Alexandrine origin. Id., De Logosleer 
in de Pleitreden von Justins, in Theol. Tijdsscrift (1902), xxxvi. 114 159. 
W. Liese , Justinus Martyr in seiner Stellung zum Glauben und zur Philo 
sophic, in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol. (1902), xxvi. 560570. 

18. Tatian the Assyrian. 

I. HIS LIFE. - Tatian, born in the land of the Assyrians , be 
longs to the Syrian race. He had travelled extensively, and had 
earned the reputation of a philosopher and a writer, before he became 
a Christian at Rome. This must have taken place previous to the death 
of Justin (163 167). Irenaeus is witness that Tatian was a hearer 
of Justin, and belonged to the Christian community at Rome until 
the latter s death. Later, probably in 172, Tatian abandoned the 
Church, joined the Gnostics, more particularly the Encratites, and 
returned to the East. Antioch (Syria), Cilicia, and Pisidia are 


mentioned as the scenes of his activity. We are quite ignorant of 
the time and place of his death 1 . 

H. A. Daniel, Tatianus der Apologet, Halle, 1837. Th. Zahn, Tatians 
Diatessaron, in Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Er- 
langen, 1881, i. 268 ff. Ad. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der griechischen 
Apologeten (cf. 13), pp. 196 232. In his Gesch. der altchristl. Lite- 
ratur, ii. i, 284 ff., Harnack has more or less completely withdrawn his 
earlier views concerning the date of Tatian. F. X. Funk, Zur Chronologic 
Tatians, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1883), Ixv. 219 233, and again in his 
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 142 152 e 

2. THE APOLOGY. Only one work of Tatian has been preserved, 
an Apology for Christianity or rather a criticism of Hellenism, entitled 
IIpoQ v<; (Oratio ad Graecos). It begins brusquely with a re 
futation of the prejudices of the Greeks (cc. i 4), and proceeds to 
establish two lines of argument in favour of Christianity : its sublime 
doctrine (cc. 4 31), and its very great antiquity (cc. 31 41). In 
the first part he combines with his exposition of Christian teaching 
concerning God and the world, sin and redemption, a satire of the 
opposite errors of the Greeks; at the end (cc. 22 29) he quite gives up 
the role of an apologist to enter upon that of a polemical writer. 
The second part of his work is devoted to proving that, though 
Homer marks the beginnings of Greek civilization, art, and science, 
Moses antedates him by four hundred years. Therefore, even those 
wise men of Greece who preceded Homer are more modern than 
Moses. As a disciple of Justin his apologetic coincides in many points 
with that of his master, while in other points there is a notable dif 
ference. Justin treats the thinkers and poets of Greece with great 
respect ; his disciple Tatian goes out of his way to belittle and insult 
them. He abounds in bitter and excessive denunciation, and ignores 
entirely all the praiseworthy features of Greek culture. In his Apology 
there is revealed, even more clearly than in his own career, a character 
harsh and passionate, and inclined to extreme measures. His style, 
likewise, is generally rough and disjointed, though occasionally, owing 
to the strength and ardour of his conviction, it assumes a poetic lofti 
ness. The purpose of his Apology was to justify his conversion to Chris 
tianity, shortly after which event it was published, probably outside 
Rome (c. 35), and about 165, when Justin had already passed away 
(cc. 1 8. 19). His doctrinal thought is markedly influenced by Stoicism; 
it also abounds in phrases and turns of expression capable of being 
interpreted as contrary to the doctrines of the Church. Christ, how 
ever, is emphatically declared to be God (cc. 13 21). In a very 
difficult passage however (c. 5) on the procession of the Word, he 
clearly teaches subordinationism. 

1 Tat., Orat, cc. I 42 29 35; Clem. Al. , Strom., iii. 12, 81 ; Epipti., Haer., 
xlvi. i; Iren., Adv. haer., i. 28, i; Eus., Chron. ad a. Abraham 2188. 


We owe the preservation of the Apology to the Arethas-Codex ( 13). 
Unfortunately the quaternions of this codex which contained it were torn 
out between the twelfth and the fourteenth century ; in their place we only 
have three copies of the codex made in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 
The editio princeps is that of J. Frisius (C. Gessner), Zurich, 1546. On the 
editions viMorellus, Maranus (Gallandi, Migne~), de Otto (Corpus apolog. vi.), 
cf. 13. The most recent edition is that of Ed. Schwartz (Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, iv. i), Leipzig, 1888. Recent German versions are those of 
F. Grone, Kempten, 1872 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), and of Harnack in a 
Programme of the University of Gieften (Aug. 25., 1884). There is an English 
translation of the Oratio by J. E. Ryland in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. 
ed. 1885), ii. 65 83. G. Dembowski, Die Quellen der christl. Apologetik 
des 2. Jahrh., part I: Die Apologie Tatians, Leipzig, 1878. B. Ponschab, 
Tatians Rede an die Griechen (Progr.), Metten, 1895. R. C. Kukida, 
Tatians sog. Apologie, Leipzig, 1900. P. Fiebig, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchen- 
geschichte (1901), xxi. 149 159. W. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre 
des Tatian, Giitersloh, 1893. A. Kalkmann, Tatians Nachrichten iiber Kunst- 
werke, in Rheinisches Museum fur Philol., new series (1887), xlii. 489 524. 
R. Kukula , Altersbeweis und Kiinstlerkatalog in Tatians Rede an die 
Griechen (Progr.), Wien, 1900. A. Puech, Recherches sur le discours aux 
Grecs de Tatien suivies d une traduction du discours, avec notes, Paris, 1903. 
If. U. Meyboom, Tatianus en zijne Apologie, in Theol. Tijdschrift (1903), 
xxxvii. 193 247. 

3. THE DIATESSARON. There is extant, at least in fragments, 
a second work of Tatian, the so-called Diatessaron. It was a Gospel- 
harmony, or story of the life and works of Our Lord compiled from 
the four canonical Gospels. The Greeks 1 called it TO dia reaadpcov 
eua jr jrl/^o^j by the Syrians it was entitled the Evangelion da Mephar- 
reshe 2 . Its chronology was framed on that of the fourth Gospel, the 
first verses of which served as an introduction. The genealogies were 
left out 3 , and in their place a few apocryphal additions were inserted. 
This work is an important witness to the authority of the four canonical 
Gospels, and was composed by Tatian in the last years of his life, after 
his apostasy, probably not in Greek but in Syriac, though it was based 
on the Greek text of the Gospels. During the whole third century, this 
harmony was the only Gospel text in use throughout many Christian 
communities of Syria, particularly at Edessa. It was only after the 
middle of the fourth century that the Gospel of the Mixed gradually 
gave way, perforce, to the Gospel of the Separated , i. e. to the 
four Gospels. Between 360 and 370, St. Ephraem Syrus wrote a 
commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian ; Theodoret of Cyrus, who 
died about 458, found it necessary to remove from the churches 
of his diocese more than two hundred copies of this work, in the 
place of which he put the Syriac version of the four Gospels (Theod. 1. c.). 
It is possible to partially reconstruct the Diatessaron by means of 
the commentary of St. Ephraem, whose original Syriac text, however, 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 29, 6 ; Theodor., Haeret. fab. coinp., i. 20. 
- i. e. Gospel of the Mixed. 3 Mt. i. i ff. ; Lk. iii. 23 ff. 


is lost, and is represented by an Armenian version. For this pur 
pose some Syriac fragments are also accessible, together with two 
later revisions of the Diatessaron: one in Latin, preserved in the 
Codex Fuldensis of the Vulgate, written at Capua about 545, and one 
in Arabic, more recent in date, it is true, but decidedly nearer to 
the original text. 

The reconstruction of the Diatessaron in Zahn, Tatians Diatessaron, 
1881, pp. 112 219, is based chietly on the Latin version of the commentary 
of Ephraem made by J. B. Aucher and published by G. Mosinger, Venice, 
1876. Cf. 82, 5 for the more recent contributions to our knowledge of this 
commentary made by J. Rendel Harris and J. H. Hill. The Latin version 
is the work of an anonymous writer who lived about 500 and used the 
Latin text of the Gospels, revised by St. Jerome about 383. Victor, bishop 
of Capua, who died in 554, caused this recension to be inserted in the 
Codex Fuldensis of the New Testament Vulgate, written under his supervision; 
it there took the place of the four Gospels. In the preface Victor speaks of 
the data furnished by Eusebius concerning the Diatessaron of Tatian (Hist. 
eccl., iv. 29, 6) and of the attempts of Ammonius of Alexandria (Ens., Ep. 
ad Carpianum) to compile a harmony. This explains why this Latin Gospel- 
harmony is sometimes printed under the name of Tatian, and again (Migne, 
PL., Ixviii. 251 358) under that of Ammonius. There is an excellent edition 
of the Codex Fuldensis by E. Ranke, Marburg and Leipzig, 1868. Fr. P. A. 
(later Cardinal) Ciasca edited the Arabic revision, Rome, 1888, from two 
manuscripts, and added a Latin translation. Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Hogg 
translated the Arabic text into English in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library 
(additional volume), Edinburgh, 1897, pp. 33 138. Some new Syriac frag 
ments were published by H. Goussen, in Studia theologica, Leipzig, 1895, 
i. 6267. Amid the copious literature on the Diatessaron the book of Zahn, 
cited above, is especially worthy of mention. Cf. the continuation of Zahn s 
own studies, in his Forschnngen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons 
(1883), ii. 286 299, and in his Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons (1888), 
i. i, 369429; (1892), ii. 2, 530556. Cf. also J. P. P. Martin, in Revue 
des questions historiques (1883), xxxiii. 349 394; (1888), xliv. 5- 50. On 
the Arabic version the reader may consult E. Sellin in Zahn, Forschungen 
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1891), iv. 225 246. Zur Geschichte 
von Tatian s Diatessaron im Abendland cf. Zahn, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. 
(1894), v. 85 120. M. Maker, Recent Evidence for the Authenticity of 
the Gospels: Tatian s Diatessaron, London, 1893. A. Hjelt, Die altsyrischen 
Evangelien-Ubersetztmgen und Tatians Diatessaron, besonders in ihrem 
gegenseitigen Verhaltnis tmtersucht, Leipzig, 1901. H. Gressmann, Studien 
zum syrischen Tetraevangelium, i., in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissen- 
schaft (1904), pp. 175, 248252. F. Crawford Burkitt , Evangelion da 
Mepharreshe, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the read 
ings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence, etc., 
Cambridge University Press, 1904, i. xix, 556; ii (introduction and notes) 
vii, 322. J. F. Stenning, (art.) Diatessaron v& Hastings Diet, of the Bible 
(extra vol., 1904) pp. 451 461. 

4. LOST WRITINGS. - Other works of Tatian have entirely 
perished. He mentions in his Apology (c. 15) a work On animals 
(Trspt w(ovj, and another (c. 16) in which he treated of the nature 
of demons. He promised a book (c. 40) Against those who have 
treated of divine things* fapuQ TOUQ dito^T^a^ivo^ nspl &souj, per- 


haps a refutation of heathen anti-Christian calumnies. Rhodon, a 
disciple of Tatian, mentions 1 a Book of problems (irpoftfajpLdTotv 
fUtfiMov), in which Tatian undertook to demonstrate the existence of 
errors and antilogies in the Sacred Scriptures (of the Old Testament). 
Clement of Alexandria mentions and refutes 2 a work of Tatian On 
perfection according to the precepts of the Saviour (Ttspl TOO xara. 
TOV (jcorr^oa. xarapTifffiouJ. We learn from Eusebius 3 that Meta 
phrases or corrections of certain sayings of St. Paul were attributed 
to Tatian. 

The testimonial relative to the lost writings are to be found in 
the current editions of the O ratio ; de Otto, pp. i64sq. , and Schwartz, 
pp. 48 sq. 

19. Miltiades. Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Melito of Sardes. 

1. MILTIADES. - - Miltiades of Asia Minor was a contemporary 
of Tatian, and perhaps also a disciple of Justin 4 . He defended 
the Christian truth against pagans, Jews and heretics, but all his 
writings have fallen a prey to time. We know from later writers 
that he composed a work against the Montanists 5 in which he sought 
to prove that a prophet should not speak in ecstacy fas pi TOO fiy 
0?y npoyyrqv ev Ixardffet AaAewJ, and another against the Valentinian 
Gnostics (Tert. 1. c.), also a work in two books against the heathens 

/Jyvaq), another in two books against the Jews (r.pbc, loo- 
and an Apology for Christian philosophy)) addressed to 
temporal rulers 6 . 

The testimonial relative to Miltiades are given by de Otto, Corpus 
Apolog. , ix. 364 373; cf. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur, 
i. 255 ff. ; ii. i, 361 if. 

2. APOLLINARIS. - - Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, 
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, left a number of works. Eusebius 
mentions 7 a Defence of the Christian faith presented to Marcus Au 
relius, apparently in 172, five books against the Pagans (-pb$ t])j.r t va.z)t 
two books on Truth faspl dAy&eiasJ, a Circular Letter against the Mon 
tanists with the subscriptions)) or opinions of other bishops, a work 
On Easter 8 (nspl TOL> 7rdff%aj, and one on Religion frrspl suffsftztaQj^, 
identical perhaps with the Defence of the Christian faith. All of 
these writings have perished. 

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., v. 13, 8. 2 Strom., iii. 12, 81. 

3 Hist, eccl., iv. 29, 6. 

4 Tertull., Adv. Valent, c. 5; Hippolytus in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 28, 4. 

5 Anonym, apud Ens. 1. c., v. 17, i. 6 us. 1. c., v. 17, 5. 

7 Ib., iv. 26, i; 27; Chron. ad a. Abraham 2187: Hist, eccl., iv. 27; ib., v. 19. 

8 It is twice cited in the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, pp. 13 14. 

9 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 14. 


The testimonia and fragments are in Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, 2. ed., 
i. 155 174; de Otto 1. c., ix. 479495. Cf. Harnack 1. c., i. 243 246; 
ii. i, 358 sq. ; Zahn , Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, 
(1893), v. 3sq. 

3. MELITO. - - Still more extensive and varied was the literary 
activity of a third native of Asia Minor, Melito, bishop of Sardes in 
Lydia. He died before 194 195 a eunuch (i. e. unmarried), and in 
all his life and works filled with the Holy Spirit , widely honoured also 
as a prophet 1 . Eusebius and Anastasius Sinaita were acquainted with 
the following works of Melito: a) a brief Apology for the Christian 
faith, presented to Marcus Aurelius perhaps in 172, some fragments 
of which are extant 2 ; b) two books on Easter (nepl TOO izdaya) com 
posed during the proconsulate of Servilius Paulus, or rather, as Ru- 
finus states, in that of Sergius Paulus, perhaps 166 167 (Bus., Hist, 
eccl. iv. 26, 2 3); c) On the Right Way of Living and the Pro 
phets (xspl xoAtTsiac; xal xpoyr/Tcov, id. 1. c. iv. 26, 2; Hier. 1. c. : 
De vita prophetarum), probably a work against Montanism; d) On 
the Church fas pi sxx/ymaq, Eus.; e) On Sunday (xspl xupiax9JQ id.)\ 

f) On the Nature of Man fas pi (poczcoq, al. TziarecoQ, avftpconoo, id.)\ 

g) On the Creation of Man fnspl xAdaecoQ, id.) ; h) On the Obedience 
of Faith fjrspl bnaxor/Q TiictTZtoQ, id.) ; i) On the Senses fxspl oiiaxo^c, 
rriffTEd)^ alaftTjTqp uov, id.). According to other text-witnesses this title 
is corrupt , and contains really two titles ; k) On Baptism (xspl Aoo- 
Tpoo, id.)\ 1) On Truth (izepl aArfteiac,, id.)] m) On the Creation and 
Birth of Christ (xzpl xriasoiQ xal "fzviazcoc, Xpiarou, id.); n) On Pro 
phecy (xspl -poprjTslaZi id.; Rufinus, Prophetia eius; Hier., De pro- 
phetia sua, probably against Montanism) ; o) On Hospitality fnspl <ptAo- 

Q, Eus.) ; p) The Key f H zAeic, id.) ; q) On the Devil (mpt TOO 
id.) ; r) On the Revelation of John fnepl TOO diaftbXoo xal 
oG Icodvvoo, id. ; Rufinus , De diabolo, De revelatione 
loannis; Hier., De diabolo, De apocalypsi loannis); s) On the Cor 
poreity of God (ftepl IvGcu/jLaTou #oo, Eus. ; nspl TOO syffat^aTov slvat 
TOV fts/w, Orig., Sel. in Gen. ad i. 26); t) Extracts ("ExXofat, Eus.), 
i. e. Extracts from the Law and the Prophets concerning our Saviour 
and our entire faith in six books. Eusebius gives (1. c. iv. 26, 12 14) 
the preface of the work ; u) On the Passion of the Lord (elq TO xdttoQ, 
Anast. Sin., Viae dux, c. 12, a short citation); v) On the Incarnation 
of Christ (nspl aapxaxjecoc, XpioToo), an anti-Marcionite work, in at least 
three books, id. 1. c. c. 13, a rather long citation. All these works are 
lost. Besides the already cited fragments there remain four scholia on 
the sacrifice of Isaac as a type of the Crucifixion of Christ. They were 
taken, probably, from the Extracts mentioned by Eusebius, but were 

1 Polycr. in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 5. Tertull. in Hier., De vir. ill. c. 24. 

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 13, 8; 26, I 2; 5 11; Chron. ad a. Abr. 2187; Chron. 
Pasch. ed. Dindorf, 483. 


already corrupted by spurious additions. There is also an interesting 
fragment on the baptism of the Lord in the Jordan, very probably 
from the homonymous work in the catalogue of Eusebius. Four 
fragments, preserved in Syriac only, ought to be considered as be 
longing to Melito: ex Tractatu de anima et corpore, ex Sennone de 
cruce, De fide, Melitonis episcopi urbis Attic ae ; in other codices, it 
is true, they bear the name of Alexander of Alexandria (f 328). On 
the other hand, Melito is not the author of an Apology that has come 
down to us in Syriac, entitled Oratio Melitonis p kilos op hi quae habita 
est cor am Antonino Caesar e. It is an energetic polemic against polytheism 
and idolatry, akin to the Apology of the Athenian Aristides, very pro 
bably of Syriac origin, and belonging to the end of the second or the be 
ginning of the third century; and the Syriac text is probably not a 
translation but the original. An Armenian fragment of four lines, ex Me 
litonis epistola ad Eutrepium, and several Latin treatises, De passione 
S. Joannis Evangelistae, De transitu B. Mariae Virginis, Clavis Scrip 
turae, Catena in Apocalypsin, are wrongly ascribed to him. Cardinal 
Pitra, the editor of the extensive Clavis Scripturae, tried to recognize 
in it a translation or rather a revision and enlargement of the Key 
of Melito, mentioned in Eusebius. In reality it is a biblical glossary 
compiled from Augustine, Gregory the Great, and other Latin Fathers. 
At the present it cannot be more precisely dated ; we know however 
that no attempt was made to identify it with the Key before the 
eleventh century. 

The testimonia and the fragments are in Routh 1. c., i. in 153; 
de Otto 1. c., ix. 374 478, 497 512. Cf. Harnack 1. c., i. 246 255; ii. 
i, 358 if., 517 ff., 522 if. C. Thomas, Melito von Sardes, Osnabriick, 1893. 
The Greek fragment on Baptism was edited by Pitra, Analecta Sacra 
(1884), ii. 3 5; for its textual criticism see J. M. Mercati , in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 597 600. 

The Syriac Apology and the four Syriac fragments were first edited 
by W. Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, London, 1855. All these fragments, 
Syriac and Latin (with exception of the fourth), as edited by E. Renan, 
are to be found in Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. (1855), ii. de Otto gives (1. c.) 
all the Syriac fragments (pp. 497 512), also the Latin (pp. 419432); cf. 
pp. 453 478. There is a German version of the Apology (from the Syriac) 
by B. Welte, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1862), xliv. 384 410, and another from 
the Latin version of v. Otto, by V. Grone, in Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, 
Kempten, 1873. For tne Apology cf. Harnack 1. c., ii. i, 522 ff., and the 
literature there indicated. On the four fragments see G. Kruger, in Zeitschr. 
fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1888), xxxi. 434 448; Thomas 1. c., pp. 40 51. 
The four Armenian lines ex Melitonis epistola ad Eutrepium are in Pitra, 
Analecta Sacra (1883), iv. 16 292. The Clavis Scripturae was twice edited 
by Pitra: in its longer form in Spicil. Solesm. (1855), ii iii. i, and in the 
shorter, more original form, in Analecta Sacra (1884), ii. For more 
specific information see O. Rottmanncr, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1896), Ixxviii. 
614 629. For the other Latin writings mentioned above cf. Harnack 1. c., 
i. 252 254. H. Jordan, Melito und Novatian, in Archiv fur latein. Lexiko- 
graphie imd Grammatik (1902), xii. 5968. 


20. Athenagoras of Athens. 

1. HIS LIFE. --In the title of his Apology, whose manuscript-tradi 
tion can be traced to the year 914, Athenagoras is called the Christian 
philosopher of Athens ( A&yvcuoG, (cO.oaoyoQ, xptanavoq). Very unreliable, 
however, are the data that an anonymous writer on the Alexandrine 
teachers pretends to have found in the Christian History of Philippus 
Sidetes ( 79, 2). According to them Athenagoras presented an Apo 
logy to Hadrian and Antoninus (Pius), and was the first master of the 
Alexandrine catechetical school. The introduction to the Apology is 
a proof that it was addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and 
was, therefore, composed between November 176 and March 1 80 

- probably in 1 77. It is possible that the hypothesis of Zahn is correct : 
he identifies our Athenagoras with another of the same name to 
whom, after 1 80, Boethus of Alexandria dedicated his book on the 
difficult expressions in Plato 1 . 

Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 256 258; ii. i, 317 319 
710. A. Eberhard, Athenagoras (Progr.)j Augsburg, 1895. 

2. HIS WORKS. The purpose of his Apology or Supplication for 
the Christians (xpeafida Kepi /piffrtavwv, Supplicatio seu legatio pro Chri- 
stianis) is to show the absurdity of the calumnies current against them, 
viz. atheism, Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest (c. 3). The first accu 
sation is very solidly refuted by a splendid exposition and demonstration 
of the Christian doctrine concerning God (cc. 4 30). The other two 
imputations are disproved by a brief resume of the principles of Chris 
tian morality (cc. 32 36). It is only en passant that the Apology deals 
polemically with heathenism; otherwise in contents it closely re 
sembles the Dialogue of Minucius Felix, though it cannot be shown 
that the latter made use of the work of Athenagoras. The only certain 
traces of its presence in ancient Christian literature are found in 
Methodius of Olympus 2 , and in Philippus Sidetes, as described above. 
Still less attention was paid in antiquity to his work On the Resurrection 
of the dead (Hspl dvaardazwc, vzxp&y). In the Arethas-Codex of 914 
it follows the Apology and is attributed to the same author. No other 
witness to this work is forthcoming ; nevertheless, there is no reason 
to deny the assertion of the manuscript, all the more as Athenagoras 
himself, at the end of his Apology (c. 36, al. 37), promises a discussion 
of the doctrine of the resurrection. The work is divided into two 
parts. In the first the objections against the possibility of the re 
surrection are refuted (cc. i 10); in the second (cc. n 25) the 
author undertakes to prove the reality of the resurrection : a) from the 
destination of man, and of every rational creature, to be and live without 
end; b) from human nature, a synthesis of soul and body (cc. 14 17); 

1 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 155. 

2 De resurr., i. 37, i. (ed. BonwetscJi). 


c) from the necessity of a retribution, not alone for the soul but for 
the body (cc. 1 8 23); d) from the last end (riXoQ) of man, that is 
unattainable in this life (cc. 24 25). 

All the known codices of the Apology and the treatise on the Resurrec 
tion are based on one archetype, the Arethas-Codex ( 13). The treatise 
on the Resurrection was first edited by P. Nannius (Louvain, 1541), and 
the Apology by C. Gesner (Zurich, 1557). For the editions of both by Morelli 
and Maranus (Gallandi, Migne) , de Otto (Corpus apolog. vii.) cf. 13. 
The most recent edition is that by Ed. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1891 (Texte und 
Untersuchungen , iv. 2). Both works were translated into German by 
Al. Bieringer , Kempten, 1875 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). There is an 
English translation by B. P. Pratten , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 
1885), ii. 129162. C. y. Hefele, Beitrage ztir Kirchengesch. , Archao- 
logie und Liturgik, Tubingen, 1864, i. 60 86: Lehre des Athenagoras 
und Analyse seiner Schriften. R. Forster, Uber die altesten Herabilder, 
nebst einem Exkurs liber die Glaubwiirdigkeit der kunstgeschichtl. An- 
gaben des Athenagoras (Progr.), Breslau, 1868. L. Arnould, De Apologia 
Athenagorae, Paris, 1898. 

3. CHARACTERISTICS. Athenagoras is a very attractive writer. In 
originality of thought he yields, possibly, to his predecessors Justin 
and Tatian, but he far surpasses them in felicity of expression, purity 
and beauty of diction, simplicity and lucidity of arrangement. He is 
well acquainted with the Greek classics. His Apology even betrays 
a certain fondness for the citation of poets and philosophers. In 
accord with Justin, and in opposition to Tatian, he exhibits a friendly 
attitude toward Greek philosophy, especially Platonism. Out of the 
treasure of Christian doctrine he selects only such principles as seem 
best adapted to blunt the edge of heathen calumny. For him 
the witnesses and guarantors of Christian faith are the prophets, 
Moses, Isaias, Jeremias, and the others whose mouth acted as an 
organ of the Holy Spirit, even as the flute is the organ of the flute- 
player (Supplic. cc. 7 9). The rational proof of the unity of God 
(c. 8) merits attention, as it is the first scientific attempt of the Chris 
tians to justify their monotheism. He bears witness to the Blessed 
Trinity with almost startling clearness and precision (see especially c. 10). 

F. Schiibring, Die Philosophic des Athenagoras (Progr.), Berlin, 1882. 
A. Joannides, UpaYjxaTeia rep! rrj? Trap A>Y]va70pa cpiXasocpixyjc Yvwaeuc (Dissert, 
inaug.), Jena, 1883. J. Lehmann, Die Auferstehungslehre des Athenagoras 
(Inaug.-Dissert.), Leipzig, 1890. P. Logothetes , C H UeoXoyia TOO A^va-fopou 
(Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1893. A. Pommrich, Des Apologeten Theophilus 
von Antiochien Gottes- und Logoslehre, dargestellt unter Beriicksichtigung 
der gleichen Lehre des Athenagoras von Athen, Dresden, 1902. 

21. Theophilus of Antioch. 

I. HIS LIFE. Theophilus is the sixth or, including St. Peter, the 
seventh bishop of Antioch 1. Eusebius relates that Theophilus became 

1 Eus., Chron. ad a. Abraham 2185; Hist, eccl., iv. 20. St. Jet:, De viris illustr., 
c. 25; Ep. 121, 6. 



bishop of that see in 169, and his successor Maximinus in 177*. The 
latter date conflicts with the fact that the last of the three books 
Ad Autolycum, which Eusebius himself says 2 were written by Theo- 
philus, must have been composed some little time after the death 
of Marcus Aurelius (March 17, 180; op. cit. cc. 27 -28). Taking 
the contradiction for granted, it is better to assume with Harnack 
that the second date is erroneous than to admit with Erbes another 
and a later Theophilus as author of the books Ad Autolycum. From 
internal evidence it appears (i. 14) that the author had reached a 
mature age when he abandoned heathenism for Christianity; that his 
home was not far from the Euphrates and the Tigris, and that he 
was probably born in that neighbourhood (ii. 24) ; that he had received 
the training of an Hellene, but possessed also a certain knowledge 
of Hebrew (ii. 12, 24; iii. 19). 

C. Erbes, Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von 
Antiochien, in Jahrbticher fiir prot. Theol. (1888), xiv. 611 656. Harnack) 
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 496502; ii. 208 213 319 ff. 534 ff. 

2. THE THREE BOOKS AD AUTOLYCUM. The three books xpOQ 
A jroXoxov are held together by a slender thread. If it be true that 
the third book was composed about 181 182, the other two may 
well have been written at a much earlier date. In the first book, 
apropos of a conversation with his heathen friend Autolycus, the 
author treats of the faith of Christians in an invisible God (cc. 2 n) 
and of the name Christian (c. 12). As a complement and illustration 
of the first book, the second discusses the folly of heathen idolatry 
(cc. 2 8) and offers a comprehensive view of the teachings of the 
prophets, men of God and representatives of the Holy Spirit 
(cc. 9 38). The third book shows the futility of the anti- Christian 
calumnies (Thyestean banquets and Oedipean incest, cc. 4 15), and 
offers proof that the Sacred Scriptures of the Christians are much older 
than the beginnings of Greek history and literature, older even than the 
mythological epoch of the Greeks (cc. 1 6 29). The style of Theophilus 
is smooth and unembarrassed, vigorous and lively ; a characteristic trait 
is his recognition of the subjective conditions of faith and the depen 
dence of religious knowledge on purity of mind (i. 2 ff ). He attributes 
an identical authority to the writings of the Evangelists (ii. 22; iii. 12), 
to the Epistles of St. Paul (iii. 14), and to the Prophets (ii. 9; iii. 12). 
He is the first to use the term rpiac, to indicate the distinction of 
persons in the Godhead (ii. 1 5) 

The books Ad Autolycum have come down to us in the eleventh-century 
Codex Marcianus 496, and of others that depend upon it. J. Frisius 
(C. Gesner) published the editio princeps, Zurich, 1546; for later editions 
see 13. The most recent is that of de Otto, Corp. apolog., viii. A German 

1 Chron. ad a. Abraham 2185 2193. 2 Hist, eccl., iv. 24. 


version was made by J. Leitl (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), Kempten, 1873. There 
is an English translation by M. Dods , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 
1885), ii. 89 121. For the concept of faith in this work of Theophilus 
cf. L. Paul, in Jahrbiicher fur prot. Theol. (1875), i- 54 6 559- The ey i 
dence of Theophilus to the Canon of the New Testament is treated by 
Harnack, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1889 1890), xi. i 21. For his 
teaching concerning God cf. G. Karabangeles, Leipzig, 1891 (Dissert, inaug.), 
and O. Gross, Chemnitz, 1896 (Progr.). A. Pommrich, Des Apologeten 
Theophilus von Antiochien Gottes- und Logoslehre, etc. , Dresden, 1902. 
O. Clausen, Die Theologie des Theophilus von Antiochien, in Zeitschr. fur 
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 81 141; (1903), xlvi. 195 213. 

3. LOST WRITINGS. Theophilus often refers to a previous work 
of his, the first book of which was entitled "Kp\ iaropicov; it dealt 
with the earliest history of mankind (ii. 30). The citations of John 
Malalas (ed. Dindorf 2^ al. 59) from a Theophilus chronographer 
are very probably not from this work. Eusebius mentions * a work 
of Theophilus, Against the heresy of Hermogenes (npoQ ~yv alpemv 
Ep/iofevovgj, some catechetical writings (TWO. xarqyrjTtxa ftifitiaj men 
tioned also by St. Jerome 2 , and a work against Marcion fxara Map- 
XIWVOQ). St. Jerome mentions also (ibid.) two works current under the 
name of Theophilus : Commentaries on the Gospel 3 , and on the 
Proverbs of Solomon (in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis com- 
mentarii). De la Bigne published (1575) under the name of Theo 
philus a Latin Commentary on the Gospels, an unorderly collection 
of allegorical scholia on excerpts from the four Gospels. It ought 
not to be identified, as is done by Zahn, with the Commentary 
described by St. Jerome, nor should it be attributed to Theophilus. 
It is rather, what Harnack has proved it to be, a compilation from 
Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, the pseudo-Arnobius Junior, and Au 
gustine, put together by a Latin compiler, probably in Southern Gaul, 
and toward the end of the fifth century. In three ancient manuscripts, 
unknown to Zahn, there is a prologue to the work in which the an 
onymous author says that his labours are an anthology from earlier 
expositors (tractatoribus defloratis opusculum spiritale composui). 

Editions of the pseudo-Theophilus-commentary on the Gospels are found 
in De la Bigne, Bibl. SS. Patrum, Paris, 1575, v. 169 192 ; de Otto, Corpus 
apolog., viii. 278 326; Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. 
Kanons (1883), ii. 29 85. For the three codices discovered since that 
date cf. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1883), i. 4, 159 175; 
Pitra, Analecta Sacra (1884), ii. 624 634, 649 650; Zahn 1. c., ii. (Der 
Evangelienkommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien), also (1884), iii. 
198 277; Harnack 1. c., pp. 97 176 (Der angebliche Evangelienkommen 
tar des Theophilus von Antiochien), and Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1886, 
pp. 404 f. A. Hauck, in Zeitschrift fiir kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. 

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 24. 

2 De viris illustr., c. 25: breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem ecclesiae 

3 Cf. also Ep. 121, 6; Comm. in Matth., praef. 



Leben (1884), v. 561 568; W. Sanday, in Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885, 
pp. 89 101 ; W. Bornemann, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1888 1889), 
x. 169 252, also took part in the controversy. 

22. The Letter to Diognetus. 

Under the name of Justin Martyr there has been handed down 
in a codex of the thirteenth or fourteenth century a Letter to Dio 
gnetus (TTOOC, AwyvriTov), which purposes to reply to certain questions 
asked by a heathen much interested in Christianity. These questions 
deal with the specific nature of the Christian adoration of God in 
contradistinction to the pagan and the Jewish worship, the sur 
prising change of life and the remarkable love for their neighbour 
that the Christians exhibit. It is further asked why this new 
religion should have appeared now, and not at an earlier period. 
The replies to these questions are distinguished for elevation of 
tone, profound grasp of the Christian ideas, magnificence and 
splendour of exposition. The portrait of the daily life of the Chris 
tians is positively fascinating (cc. 5 6). The theme is exhausted in 
the tenth chapter; what is read in cc. u 12 of the codex does 
not belong to the original Letter. Nor does the codex deserve 
credence as to the author of the document, whose fine classical dic 
tion is quite irreconcilable with the unstudied, unornamented and 
unimpassioned style of Justin. Regarding the letter we have no 
information from extrinsic sources. Donaldson attempted to show that 
it was an academic exercise in style or declamation, belonging to the 
fifteenth or sixteenth century. But the date of the codex suffices to 
discredit this hypothesis. Internal evidence would show that the work 
belongs to the era of the persecutions (cc. 5 7). It does not belong, 
therefore, to the post-Constantinian period, as Overbeck asserts, but 
rather to the second or third century. In the absence of more posi 
tive evidence it is difficult to assign a more precise date, though the 
earlier one seems preferable. In this case the recipient of the Letter 
might have been Diognetus, the well-known preceptor of Marcus 
Aurelius. The authorship has been variously attributed; by Bunsen 
to Marcion, by Draseke to Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, by 
Doulcet, Kihn, and Kriiger to Aristides of Athens. The latter hypo 
thesis alone merits attention. There is an undeniable relationship 
between the two documents ; but something more is needed to 
render probable an identity of authorship or even a contemporaneous 
composition of both works. 

The Letter to Diognetus reached us in only one manuscript, the Codex 
Argentoratensis 9 ( 17, 2). It was destroyed by the fire of Strasburg in the 
siege of 1870. The editio princeps is that of H. Stephanus , Paris, 1592. 
Later it was printed among the works of Justin ( 17, 2) by de Otto, Corpus 
apolog. (1879), i- 158 211, and more recently among the works of the 
Apostolic Fathers by von Gebhardt and Harnack, Barnabae epist. (1878), 

23. HERMIAS. 69 

pp. 142 164, and by Funk, Opera Patr. apostol. (1878, 1887, 1901), 
i. 310 333. The latter editor was the first to make use (1901) of an 
ancient copy of Codex Argentoratensis 9, preserved at Tubingen. The 
Letter has been often translated into modern languages. We are indebted 
for a new German rendering to W. Heinzdmann, Erfurt, 1896. There is an 
English translation by Roberts and Donaldson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. 
ed. 1885), i. 25 30. Cf. y. Donaldson, A Critical History of Christian 
Literature and Doctrine, London, 1866, ii. 126 142. Fr. Overbeck, Uber 
den pseudo-justinischen Brief an Diognet (Progr.) , Basel, 1872, reprinted 
with additions in the same author s Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, 
Schloft Chemnitz, 1875, i. i 92. J. Draseke , Der Brief an Diognetos, 
Leipzig, 1 88 1 , a reprint from Jahrbticher fur prot. Theol. (1881), vii. 
H. Kihn, Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet, Freiburg, 1882. G. Kriiger 
defended, in Zeitschr. far wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 206 223, the 
authorship of Aristides, but later he abandoned this opinion of Kihn , in 
his Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, appendices, Freiburg, 1897. For the 
relations between the Letter and the Apology of Aristides cf. R. Seeberg, 
in Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1893), v. 
239 243. Kihn, Zum Briefe an Diognet, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1902), 
Ixxxiv. 495 498. G. N. Bonwetsch has shown that cc. i 12 of the 
Letter to Diognetus belong to Hippolytus. F. X. Funk, Das Schluftkapitel 
des Diognetenbriefes, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1903), Ixxxv. 638 639. 

23. Hermias. 

Under the title, A Mockery of Heathen Philosophers by the 
Philosopher Hermias* CEpp.siou <f>do06<pou dtaffupfjt&Q TWV $a) <ptXo~ 

at upwy, Irrisio gentilium philosophorum), a small work has come down 
that sets forth, in a satirical way, the contradictory opinions of Greek 
philosophers concerning the human soul (cc. I 2) and the funda 
mental principles of the universe (cc. 3 10). The author exhibits 
wit and ability, but is superficial, inasmuch as he constantly fails to 
seize or to realize the respective cohesion of the theses of the philo 
sophers. This work is never mentioned in Christian antiquity, and in 
the text itself there are no clear traces of its actual date. However, the 
author does not belong, as Diels thinks, to the fifth or sixth century, 
but rather to the second or third. Hermias bears the title of philo- 
sopher in common with several apologists of the second and third 
centuries: Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, and the pseudo-Melito. The 
attitude and tendency of his work, its polemical bitterness and lively 
diction, point, apparently, to the period of the earliest intellectual conflict 
of youthful Christianity with Hellenic philosophy. Certain indications 
that the writer made use of the Cohortatio ad Gentiles of the pseudo- 
Justin 1 , do not justify the opinion that the work was of a later 
date than we have indicated. 

For the manuscript-tradition cf. Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Lite 
ratur, i. 782 f. The cditio princcps is that of J. Oporinus , Basel, 1553. 

1 Compare respectively Irris., cc. I 5, with Cohort., cc. 7 31. In the latter pas 
sages, however, it seems better to admit the use, by both writers, of a third source : 
i. e. Pseudo-Pint., De placitis phil., i. 7, 4. 


Other editions are those of Morelli and Maranus (Gallandi, Migne), v. Otto, 
Corpus apolog., ix. i 31; cf. xl. li. and 13. The most recent edition 
is that of H. Dieh , Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 1879, PP- 649 656, cf. 
pp. 259 to 263. A German version by J. Leitl is found in the Bibl. der 
Kirchenvater, Kempten, 1873. 

24. Minucius Felix. 

I. THE DIALOGUE OCTA\TUS. This Latin apology for Chris 
tianity is in every way worthy to rank with the preceding Greek works 
of the same nature. It is-thrown into the form of a Dialogue between 
the Christian Octavius Januarius and the heathen Caecilius Natalis, 
both friends of the author Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer (causidicus) . 
It opens in a very lively manner : the disputants are seated by the sea 
at Ostia, having chosen Minucius Felix as arbiter of their controversy 
(cc. I 4). Caecilius advocates the teaching of the Skeptics, yet de 
fends the faith of his fathers as the one source of Roman greatness ; 
Christianity is an unreasonable and immoral illusion (cc. 5 ^-3}- 
Octavius follows closely the arguments of Caecilius, makes a drastic 
expose of the follies of polytheism , and refutes the usual anti- 
Christian calumnies (adoration of the head of an ass, of the genitalia 
of the clergy, Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest, atheism) and 
closes with a touching portrait of the faith and life of the Christians 
(cc. 1 6 38). No arbiter s judgment is needed, as Caecilius admits 
his defeat. For artistic composition and graceful treatment of the 
given theme none of the second or third century Christian apologies 
can be compared to the Octavius. The De natura deorum of Cicero 
was apparently the author s model. He certainly made use of this 
work of Cicero and of his De divinatione, likewise of the De pro- 
videntia and De superstitione of Seneca. A generous humanitarian 
tone pervades the entire work. The monotheistic character of Chris 
tianity is constantly insisted on (c. 18). Its most important feature 
is the practical morality it inculcates (c. 32, 3). The author does 
not mention the Christian mysteries, nor does he make use of the 
Sacred Scriptures (cf. however c. 34, 5). At the same time we 
cannot admit with Kiihn that Minucius furnishes no more than an 
ethnico-philosophical concept of Christianity . His work is an ex 
position of the genuine Christian truth, but executed in a manner 
suitable to impress the philosophical circles of heathenism. 

The Dialogue has reached us only through Codex Parisinus 1661 of 
the ninth century (and a copy of the sixteenth century), in which it appears 
as the eighth book of Arnobius Adversus nationes. The first editors were 
F. Sabaeus, Rome, 1543, and Fr. Balduin, Heidelberg, 1560. Later it was 
edited or reprinted by C. de Muralt, Zurich, 1836; Migne } PL., iii. (Paris, 
1844); J. B. Kayser, Paderborn, 1863; C. Halm, Vienna, 1867 (Corpus 
script, eccles. lat. , ii.); J. J. Cornelissen , Leyden, 1882; E. Bdhrens, 
Leipzig, 1886. The best of these editions is that by Halm. It is reprinted 


in Bibliotheca Ss. Patrum, Rome, 1901. For new contributions to the 
textual criticism of Octavius cf. Teuffel-Schwabe, Gesch. der romischen 
Literatur, 5. ed., pp. 931 1317, and J. Vahlen, in Index lect. Berol. per 
sem. aest. a (1894), also in Hermes (1895), xxx - 3^5 39- C. Synnerberg, 
Randbemerkungen zu Minucius Felix, Berlin, 1897. Translations into German 
have been made by A. Bieringer, Kempten, 1871 (Bibliothek der Kirchen- 
vater) ; B. Dombart, Erlangen, 1875 1 % f l6 i 2 - e d- ( text oi Halm], 1881 ; 
H. Hage.n, Berne, 1890. There is an English translation by R. E. Wallis, in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), iv. 173 198. E. Behr, Der Octavius 
des M. Minucius Felix in seinem Verhaltnis zu Ciceros Blichern De natura 
deorum (Dissert, inaug.), Gera, 1870. Concerning the models and fontes of 
the Dialogue cf. Th. Keim, Celsus Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873, pp. 151 168 ; 
G. Losche, in Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. (1882), viii. 168178; P. de Ftlice, 
Etude sur 1 Octavius de Minucius Felix (These), Blois, 1880. R. Kiihn, Der 
Octavius des Minucius Felix, eine heidnisch-philosophische Auffassung vom 
Christentum, Leipzig, 1882. Against Kiihn cf. O. Grillnbcrger , in Jahrb. 
fur Philos. u. spekul. Theol. (1889), iii. 104 118, 146161, 260 269; 
B. Seiller, De sermone Minuciano (Progr.), Vienna, 1893. There is an ex 
haustive bibliography of Octavius in J. P. Waltzing, Bibliographic raisonnee 
de Minucius Felix, in Museon beige (1902), vi. 216 261. Minucius Felix, 
Octavius, in usum lectionum suarum, ed. J. P. Waltzing, Louvain, 1903. 
Octavius, rec. et praefatus est H, Boenig, Leipzig, 1903. Cf. O. Boiler o, 
L Octavius de M. Minucio Felice e le sue relazioni con la coltura classica, 
in Rivista filosofica, 1903; C. Synnerberg, Randbemerkungen zu Minucius 
Felix, Helsingfors-Berlin, 1903, ii; G. Bossier, L Octavius de Minucius Felix, 
in La fin du paganisme, 3. ed., Paris, 1898, i. 261 289; F. X. Burger, Uber 
das Verhaltnis des Minucius Felix zu dem Philosophen Seneca (Dissert.), 
Miinchen, 1904; G. Thiancourt, Les premiers apologistes chretiens a Rome 
et les traites philosophiques de Ciceron, Paris, 1904. 

2. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. We know no more of the events of 
the author s life. He tells us himself (cc. 14) that in his later years 
only had he come forth from deepest obscurity into the light of wis 
dom and truth . Lactantius 1 seems to suppose that Minucius preceded 
Tertullian ; Jerome 2 , on the contrary, is surely of the opinion that 
Tertullian wrote previously to Minucius. There is indeed a close 
resemblance between the Octavius and the Apologeticum of 
Tertullian, written in 197. We believe with Ebert, Schwenke, Reck, 
and others that it is Tertullian who made use of Minucius, and not, 
as earlier writers (and recently Massebieau) have held, Minucius who 
used the writings of Tertullian. Still less tenable is the theory of 
Hartel and Wilhelm that we must suppose a third source common 
to both, but no longer discoverable. There are other evidences of 
the priority of Minucius. Pronto of Cirta, who died after 175, must 
have been alive, or at least a very well-known personality, at the time 
of the composition of Octavius (cc. 9, 6; 31, 2). A reliable terminus 
ad quern is the tractate of Cyprian Quod idola dii non sint, written 
perhaps in 248, and in which the work of Minucius is copiously drawn 

1 Div. inst., v. i, 22; cf. i. n, 55. 

2 De viris illustr., cc. 53, 58; Ep. 70, 5. 


upon. The Octavius may have been written at the beginning of the 
reign of Commodus (180 192). There is no reason for admitting 
with de Felice and Schanz, an earlier date, e. g. the reign of An 
toninus Pius. On the other hand, Neumann is quite arbitrary when 
he brings down the date of composition to the reign of Philippus 
Arabs (244 249); still more so is Schultze when he attributes it to 
the beginning of the fourth century. The use of the work by 
Cyprian is sufficient to exclude both of these hypotheses. 

For the date of composition cf. A. Ebert, in Abhandlungen der phil.- 
hist. Klasse der kgl. sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. (1870), v. 319 420; 
W. Hartely in Zeitschr. fur die osterreich. Gymnasien (1869), xx. 348 368; 
V. Schultze, in Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. (1881), vii. 485 506; P. Schwenke, 
ib. (1883), ix. 263294; F. X. Reck, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1886), Ixviii. 
64114; Fr. Wilhelm, in Breslauer philolog. Abhandlungen (1887), ii. i; 
M. L. Massebieau, in Revue de 1 hist. des religions (1887), xv. 316346; 
K. J. Neumann, Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, Leipzig, 
1890, i. 241 if. 250 if. ; M, Schanz y in Rhein. Museum fur Philol., new series 
(1895), L. 114 136; E. Nor den y in Index lect. Gryphiswald. per sem. aest. 
a. 1897 ; H.Boenig, in a programme of the Gymnasium of Konigsberg, 1897. 

3. THE TREATISE DE FATO. Jerome was acquainted with a 
work current under the name of Minucius, entitled De fato vel contra 
mathematicos. He doubted its authenticity because of the diversity 
of style 1 . It is true that in the Octavius Minucius does promise 
(c. 36, 2) a work De fato. Possibly his own words caused an 
homonymous work of some other writer to be fathered upon him. 



25. Gnostic Literature. 

I. INTRODUCTION. The apologetic literature was one result of 
the conflict between heathenism and Christianity. But even while 
the Apostles lived, the Church came in contact with another formi 
dable enemy known as heresy. It did not dispute with her the 
right to exist, but it threatened the purity and integrity of her apo 
stolic faith. It is of importance, therefore, that a brief summary of 
the literary labours of heretics should precede an account of the anti- 
heretical literature. 

The most influential of the primitive heresies was Gnosticism. 
It aimed at undermining the entire structure of Christian faith, since, 
in spite of the contradictions of its multiform systems, it was based 
on the hypothesis of a dual principle and rejected the doctrine of 
creation. Nevertheless, it made much headway in the East and West, 

1 Ib. 


especially among the cultured classes, and brought forth a literature 
of more than ordinary variety and richness. With the exception of 
a few works preserved, for the most part, in Coptic, this literature 
has perished, and is known to us only from the few fragments that 
the ecclesiastical writers inserted in their polemical writings for the 
purpose of confuting their heretical opponents. 

The principal authorities for the study of Gnosticism and its literature 
are the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus , the Philosophy wena of Hippolytus, 
the Panarion or Haereses of Epiphanius , and the Liber de haeresibus of 
Philastrius. For critical researches on the sources of these and similar 
works cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanies, Vienna, 1865; 
Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht, Leipzig, 1875. 
Ad. Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnostizismus, Leipzig, 
1873; Zur Quellenkritik der Gesch. des Gnostizismus, in Zeitschr. fur die 
histor. Theol. (1874), xliv. 143226. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte 
des Urchristentums urkundlich dargestellt, Leipzig, 1884; Judentum und 
Judenchristentum, Leipzig, 1886. J. Kunze, De historiae gnosticismi fon- 
tibus novae quaestiones criticae, Leipzig, 1894. Collections of Gnostic 
fragments are found in J E. Grabe, Spicilegium Ss. Patrum ut et haereti- 
corum saec. p. Chr. n. i. ii. et iii., Oxford, 1698 1699; 2. ed. 1714, 2 voll., 
passim ; in R. Massuet s edition of the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus, Paris, 
1710, pp. 349 376 (Migne, PG., vii. 1263 1322); in A. Stiereris edition 
of Irenaeus, Leipzig, 1848 1853, i. 899971; in Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzer 
geschichte des Urchristentums, passim. For the most complete index of 
Gnostic writers and writings cf. Ad. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, 
i. 143 205; ii. i, 289 311, 533541; R. Liechtenhahn, Untersuchungen 
zur koptisch-gnostischen Literatur, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. 
(1901), xliv. 236252; Id., On the apocryphal literature of the Gnostics, 
in Zeitschr. fur neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 222237 ; E. de Faye, 
Introduction a 1 etude du gnosticisme au 2 e et 3 siecle, in Revue de 1 histoire 
des religions (1902), and Paris, 1903. 

2. BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS. It would seem that the earliest 
chiefs of the Gnostic sects, Dositheus, Simon Magus, Cleobius, Men- 
ander, Cerinthus, Nicolaus (?), Satornilus, left no writings, though 
at an early date certain works were attributed to them by their 
followers. Origen * is aware of pretended books of Dositheus ; 
Hippolytus 2 bases his account of the teachings of Simon Magus on 
a supposed Great revelation (dmxpaaiq ^sfdtyj current, we may sup 
pose, under the name of Simon. Other ecclesiastical writers were of 
the same view. Basilides, who taught at Alexandria about 120 140, 
wrote a Gospel, a Commentary on the same, also Psalms or Canticles 
(Odes). His Gospel is often mentioned by name 3 , first by Origen, 
but not analysed or described. It was probably no more than a com 
pilation made for his own purposes from the four Gospels. According 
to Agrippa Castor the Commentary of Basilides consisted of twenty- 
four books 4 . Some fragments of it are quoted by Clement of Alexandria, 

1 Comm. in Joan. xiii. 27: pift^ouq TOU Aoa&iou. Philos., vi. 7 20; al. 

3 Orig., Horn. I in Lucam. 4 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 7, 7. 



Origen, and the author of the Acta Archelai et Manetis. Concerning 
the Psalms or Odes we merely know the fact that they once existed 1 . 
The nature of teachings of Basilides is variously represented by an 
cient writers ; the Basilides of Irenseus 2 seems to be a dualist and 
an emanationist, while, according to Hippolytus 3 , he seems to be an 
evolutionist and a pantheist. In order to reconcile these descriptions 
of the Basilidian system it is customary to admit two phases of the 
same: a primitive form and a later transformation. It still remains 
doubtful whether the prior stage of the heresy were that set forth 
by Irenaeus or the one described by Hippolytus. Salmon and 
Stahelin have recently maintained that, in his account of Basilides, 
Hippolytus was deceived, as he was on other occasions ( 54, 3), 
by Gnostic forgeries ; but this hypothesis offers too violent a solution 
of the problem. Isidore, degitimate son and disciple of Basilides 4 , 
left at least three works. Their titles, according to Clement of 
Alexandria , were : On an adherent soul 5 (rcspi TrpocrpuouQ fiufflQ 5 
Isidore distinguished between a rational and an appended soul); 
Ethica (ijfttxd) 6 , perhaps identical with the xapaweTixd that Epi- 
phanius attributes to him 7 , and an Exposition of the prophet Parchor 8 
(iqr^Ttxa TOO xpoyyTou Ilapywp). Parchor was one of the prophets 
invented by Basilides and invoked as authorities. Agrippa Castor 
(1. c.) says that he deliberately chose barbarian names for them. 

The fragments of the works of Basilides and Isidore are collected in 
Grabe (see p. 73, Oxford, 1699), ii. 35 43, 64 68; Massuet (see p. 73) 
pp. 349 ff . , 351 ff . ; Stieren 1. c. , pp. 901 flf . , 907 ff . ; Hilgenfeld 1. c., 
pp. 207 ff . \ 213 ff. They have received special attention from the latter 
and from Th. Zahn , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1888 1889), 
i. 763 774. J. Kennedy, Buddhist Gnosticism. The System of Basilides, 
London, 1902. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

3. THE OPHITES OR GNOSTICS*. The Ophites, or Brethren of 
the Serpent, were the first to take the name of Gnostics (fvcoartxoi). 
Even in the second century they had branched out quite extensively. 
Some were frankly antinomian in their principles , committed the 
gravest excesses, and indulged in abominable orgies, while others 
embraced, theoretically at least, Encratite doctrines. The ancient heresio- 
logists are unanimous in declaring that several of these sects had them 
selves composed, or used and esteemed highly, very many works, 
chiefly apocryphal, but current under the name of biblical characters. 
St. Irenaeus made use of several such writings for his account of 
ancient heresies ; but he mentions the name of only one the Gospel 
of Judas, a book of the Cainites 9 . Hippolytus is wont to indicate more 

1 Fragm. Murat., c. fin. ; Orig. in Job xxi. 1 1 sq. 

2 Adv. haer., i. 24, 3 7, etc. 3 Philos., vii. 20 27; al. 

4 Ib., vii. 20. 5 Clem. AL, Strom., ii. 20, 113. 6 Ib., iii. i, 2. 

7 Haer., 32, 3. * Clem. Al. 1. c., vi. 6, 53. 

9 Adv. haer., i. 31, i. 


particularly the sources of his narrative, and Epiphanius has preserved 
the titles of a long series of Ophitic writings. In recent times some 
Ophitic works of Encratite tendencies have been discovered in Coptic 
translations. The Pistis Sophia, edited in 1851 by Schwartze and 
Petermann from a fifth or sixth century Coptic codex (Askewianus) 
in the British Museum, is a specimen of such heretical literature. It 
relates, in the form of a conversation between the risen Saviour and 
his male and female disciples, among whom Mary Magdalen is pro 
minent, the fall and the redemption of Pistis Sophia, a being from 
the world of the ./Eons. The vicissitudes of her story prefigure the 
way of purification for mankind through penance. Numerous psalms 
(odes) are scattered through the text; apart from five Solomonic 
psalms, that are placed on a level with the psalms of David, they 
seem to be the work of the author. In its present form the Pistis 
Sophia is made up of four books, and was very probably put 
together in the second half of the third century, in Egypt. It was 
formerly erroneously attributed to Valentine (see p. 76) or to some 
later member of his school. At present the first three books are 
by many identified with the Little Questions of Mary (epwr^ffsn; 
Mapiaq fuxpai) that Epiphanius quotes 1 as a book of the Gnostics; 
the fourth book is apparently of an earlier date. A Coptic papyrus- 
codex of Oxford (Brucianus), belonging to the fifth or sixth century, 
has saved from loss two Ophite works. Their content was made known 
in 1891 by Amelineau, and in 1892 by Schmidt. In the larger one 
our Lord expounds to his male and female disciple certain cosmogonic 
speculations and gives them theologico-practical instructions. In the 
smaller one he illustrates the origin and evolution of the world. The 
text of both codices, however, is disfigured by gaps and breaks. 
According to Schmidt, the larger codex was written among the 
Severians 2 , about the middle of the third century, and is identical 
with the two Books of Jeu cited in Pistis Sophia*. The smaller 
one appears to be of very remote antiquity, and is held by Schmidt 
to be a book of the Sethians or Archontici 4 written about the 
middle of the second century. His arguments, however, are open to 
objections. A Coptic papyrus of the fifth (?) century, acquired in 1896 
for the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, includes three fragments of Gnostic 
origin. They are, according to the provisory description of Schmidt: 
a Gospel according to Mary (sdaffehov xara j\lo.ptdfj., with the sub 
title: axoxpixpov Icodwou, containing mostly revelations to John); a 
Wisdom of Jesus Christ* (oo<pia "Ir^aolj Xptarou , revelations of our 
Lord after His death); and an Act of Peter (xpastQ IHrpou, a 
miraculous healing of Peter s own daughter). St. Irenaeus seems 

1 Haer., 26, 8. 2 Epiph., Haer., 45. 

3 Ed. Sch-warlze and Petermann, p. 245 sq., 354. 

4 Epiph., 1. c., 39 40. 


to have known and used the Gospel according to Mary, in his 
description of the Barbelo-Gnostics 1 ; a clearer knowledge will be pos 
sible only when the text is published. 

Pistis Sophia. Opus gnostictim Valentino adiudicatum e codice manu- 
scripto Coptico Londinensi descripsit et latine vertit M. G. Schwartze. Edidit 
y. H. Petermann, Berlin, 1851. K. R. Kostlin, Das gnostische System des 
Buches Pistis Sophia, in Theol. Jahrbiicher (1854), xiii. i 104, 137 196. 
Ad. Harnack, Uber das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia, in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen (1891), vii. 2, i 114. Cf. also the writings of Schmidt (mentioned 
below) on the Papyrus Brucianus. The edition and translation of this codex 
by AnUlineau (Paris, 1891) was not a success; the same may be said of 
his Comptes-rendus concerning the contents of the codex. E. Andersson, 
Compte-rendu critique: Amelineau: fhVn? 2ocpta, ouvrage gnostique de 
Valentin, traduit du copte en franc, ais, in Sphinx, 1904, pp. 237 253. 

The editio princeps is, we may remark, that of C. Schmidt, Gnostische 
Schriften in koptischer Sprache, aus dem codex Brucianus herausgegeben, 
iibersetzt nnd bearbeitet (Texte und Untersuchungen, viii. i 2), Leipzig, 1892. 
Cf. Schmidt, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 555 585. 

For the Berlin papyrus cf. C. Schmidt , Ein vorirenaisches gnostisches 
Originalwerk in koptischer Sprache , in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. 
Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 1896, pp. 839 847. 

C. Schmidt, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften: I. Die Pistis Sophia; II. Die 
beiden Biicher des Jeu; III. Unbekanntes altgnostisches Werk, Berlin, 1905. 
(Griechisch-christliche Schriftsteller.) For an English translation of Pistis 
Sophia, made from the German of C. Schmidt 3 see E. R. S. Mead, Frag 
ments of a Faith Forgotten, London and Benares, 1900, pp. 459 479; 
cf. ib. pp. 605 630, a full bibliography of works on Gnosticism. 

4. CARPOCRATIANS. The followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria 2 
consigned to various works their peculiar Gnosis which was closely 
related to that of the antinomian group of the Ophites. Clement of 
Alexandria furnishes some particulars concerning one of these works 3 . 
He tells us that about the middle of the second century Epiphanes, 
son of Carpocrates, though only seventeen years of age, wrote a work 
On justice (nept dtxatoavvyq) in which, as is evident from the cita 
tions of Clement, he advocated a thorough communism, even of women. 

U. Benigni, I socialisti alessandrini del II. secolo, in Bessarione (1896 
to 1897), i. 597 601. 

5. VALENTINE AND VALENTINIANS. -- Valentine is held to be the 
most intellectual champion of the hellenizing Gnosis, which followed 
in the footsteps of Plato and taught a parallelism between the ideal 
world above (ittyp&fjiaj and the lower world of phenomena (xlvw/jta, 
botipyfjLa) . The connecting link is the xdrco ao<pia or Achamoth, 
a being fallen from the avto aowia , last of the /Eons, into the 
visible world. At the moment of his baptism the /Eon Soter (or Jesus) 
descended upon the Christ who had been promised and sent by the 
Demiurge or World-Creator. Valentine was an Egyptian and had been 

1 Adv. haer., i. 29. 2 Ib., i. 25, 4 5. 3 Strom., iii. 2, 59. 


initiated into Greek science at Alexandria. From 135 to 160 (approxima 
tely) he sojourned at Rome, and there took place his final apostasy 
from the Church. Wounded in his pride at being an unsuccessful can 
didate for the papacy, in revenge he took up the role of an arch- 
heretic. The date of his death is uncertain. Clement of Alexandria has 
preserved some fragments of his Letters and Homilies l . Hippolytus 2 
has saved a remnant of the Psalms of Valentine 3 . The Sophia 
Valentini in Tertullian 4 is not a work of this Gnostic, but rather his 
/Eon Sophia. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians made use of a 
Gospel of Truth , which had nothing in common with the canonical 
Gospels 5 . - - During his life, apparently, the school of Valentine 
divided into two branches: known respectively as the Italian or 
Western and the Eastern branch. The Italici declared the body of 
the Saviour to be of a psychic character, while the Easterns main 
tained that is was pneumatic. The principal writers of the Italian 
school were Heracleon and Ptolemy, both personal disciples of Valen 
tine. Heracleon composed a Commentary on St. John, from which 
Origen, in his Commentary on that evangelist, has taken about fifty 
citations, partly verbal and partly paraphrased. Two other exegetical 
passages of Heracleon are cited by Clement of Alexandria 6 . As a rule 
the exegesis of Heracleon is not only very arbitrary, but also absurd. 
Some extracts from Ptolemy are found in Irenaeus 7 , including an ex 
position of the prologue of the Gospel of John. We owe to Epi- 
phanius 8 the preservation of the complete text of a Letter of Ptolemy 
to Flora, a Christian lady, in which he undertakes to prove that the 
Law of the Old Testament was the work not of the Supreme God, 
but of the World-Creator or Demiurge. The Syriac fragment of a 
Letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor exhibits a certain Florinus, 
at one time a priest of the Roman Church, in the character of a 
Christian writer (cf. 34, 4). The chief literary remains of the 
Eastern branch of the Valentinians are the Excerpta ex scriptis 
Theodoti : ex TCUV Osodoroo xal TTJQ dvarohxrjQ xaAouuevyQ dtdavxaXiac, 
xara robe, O&afavrfoou ypovo jQ imrofiai. They have come down 
under the name of Clement of Alexandria, and are an account of 
the teachings of the Oriental Valentinians, together with excerpts 
from the writings of an otherwise unknown Theodotus and some 
anonymous Valentinians. 

The fragments of the writings of Valentine may be seen in Grabe 
1. c., ii. 435 8 ; Massuct 1. c., pp. 352 355; Stieren 1. c., pp. 909916; 

1 Strom., ii. 8, 36; iv. 13, 896".; al. 2 Philos., vi. 37. 

3 Terl., De came Christi, c. 17, 20; al. 4 Adv. Valent., c. 2. 

5 Veritatis evangelium, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis : Adv. haer.. 
iii. 1 1, 9. 

6 Strom., iv. 9, 70 ff. ; Eclog. proph., c. 25. 7 Adv. haer., i. 18, 5. 
8 Haer., 33, 57. 


Hilgenfeld 1. c., pp. 292 307. The fragments of Heracleon are in Grabe, 
pp. 80 117, 236; Massuct, pp. 362 376; Stieren, pp. 936 971 ; Hilgenfeld, 
pp. 472 505; cf. A. E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon (Texts and 
Studies, i. 4), Cambridge, 1891. On Heracleon see G. Salmon, in Diet, of 
Christian Biography, London, 1880, ii. 897 900. The Letter of Ptolemy to 
Flora is in Grabe, pp. 6880; Massitet, pp. 357 361; Stieren, pp. 922 936; 
Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1881), xxiv. 214 230; cf. 
Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergesch. des Urchristentums, p. 346, note 580. An 
unsuccessful attempt was made by Stieren to disprove the authenticity and 
the unity of the Letter of Ptolemy to Flora. A. Stieren, De Ptolemaei Valen- 
tiniani ad Floram epistola, Part. I, Jenae, 1843. Cf. Ad. Harnack , Der 
Brief des Ptolemaus an die Flora. Eine relig. Kritik am Pentateuch im 
2. Jahrhundert, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., 
Berlin, 1902, pp. 507 545. G. Heinrid, Die valentinianische Gnosis und 
die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1871; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, 
i. 718 763: Der Schriftgebrauch in der Schule Valentins ; cf. ii. 953 961; 
F. Torm, Valentinianismen, historic og laere, Copenhagen, 1901 ; G. Mer- 
cati , Note di litteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, Rome, 
1901), v. 88 sq. In this work is cited from a certain Anthimus a passage 
of an otherwise unknown work of Valentine (-spl TU>V Tpioiv cpujcwv). 

6. BARDESANES AND HARMONIUS. According to Oriental writers 
the Syrian Bardesanes (Bar Daisan) was born of noble parents at 
Edessa, July ii., 154, proclaimed himself founder of a new religion 
1 80 190, fled to Armenia in 216 or 217, after the conquest of 
Edessa by Caracalla, returned later to his native land and died there 
222 223. He was originally a Valentinian of the Eastern type, 
but soon developed a religious system of his own that is rightly 
looked on as a foreshadowing of Manichaeism. Certain hymns of 
Ephraem Syrus show that Bardesanes devoted himself particularly 
to astrological and cosmogonic speculations *, and that he maintained 
against Marcion (see p. 79) the unity of God ; \vhile at the same time 
he introduced a plurality of gods. His son Harmonius, according to 
Sozomen 2 , added to the teachings of his father the opinions of 
Greek philosophers concerning the soul, the origin and end of the 
body, and the second birth. Ephraem Syrus relates 3 that Bardesanes 
wrote 150 Psalms and composed the melodies for the same, but 
Sozomen (1. c.) says that Harmonius was the parent of Syriac hymno- 
logy. Probably the latter collected and edited his father s poetical 
works, and added thereto something of his own. It is possible that 
some fragments of the Psalms of Bardesanes are yet to be seen in 
the poetical remnants of the apocryphal Acts of Saint Thomas 
(cf. 30, 8). Polemical and apologetic works of Bardesanes were 
known to Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret 4 . The polemical 
works were dialogues, written against Marcion, and were translated 
from Syriac into Greek. The dialogue On (or Against) Fate (xep} 
or y.a-ca eipapfiivyq) is mentioned by the three Greek writers just 

1 Serm. adv. haer., i 56. 2 Hist, eccl., iii. 16. 3 L. c., sermo 53. 

4 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 30. Epiph., Haer., 56, i. Theodor., Haeret. fab. comp. i. 22. 


quoted; Eusebius took from it 1 two long passages. It is yet ex 
tant in Syriac under the title Book of the Laws of the Countries. 
In this work Bardesanes, the chief interlocutor, proves that the 
peculiar characters of men are not affected by the position of the 
stars at their birth, since various countries have the same laws, 
customs, and usages. However, the dialogue does not pretend to be 
written by Bardesanes, but by his disciple Philip. In later Oriental 
works we meet mention of other books of Bardesanes. Moses of 
Chorene 2 attributes to him a history of the kings of Armenia. Ibn 
Abi Jakub, in his literary history known as Fihrist, attributes to 
Bardesanes a work on light and darkness , another on the spiritual 
nature of truth, and a third on the movable and the immovable. 

A. Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, nebst einer Untersuchung liber das 
Verhaltnis der clementinischen Rekognitionen zu dem Buche der Gesetze 
der Lander, Halle, 1863. A. Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker, 
Leipzig, 1864. Cf. also the articles of F. J. A. ffort, in the Dictionary 
of Christ. Biography, i. 250 260, of J. M. Schonf elder , in the Kirchen- 
lexikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2. ed., i. 1995 2002, and of G. Kriiger, in 
the Realenzykl. fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, ii. 400 403. For the Book 
of the Laws of Countries (Syriac and English), cf. W. Cureton, Spicilegium 
Syriacum, Lond., 1855, pp. i 21, 21 34. There is a German translation 
in Merx 1. c., pp. 25 55. It has also been translated from Syriac into 
French by F. Nau , Bardesanes, astrologue, Le livre des lois des pays, 
Paris, 1899. 

7. MARCION AND APELLES. Marcion was the son of a bishop of 
Sinope in Pontus. About the year 140 he appeared in Rome as a 
wealthy navigator. Though he had been excommunicated by his father 
for licentious conduct, he managed to secure a reception among the 
Christians of that city. A few years later (about 144), he was no 
longer in communion with the authorities of the Roman church, and 
was bent on founding a church under his own auspices. Owing to 
his success in this undertaking, the Pontic skipper affected both his 
contemporaries and posterity more profoundly than any heresiarch of 
the second century. Beginning with a strict adherence to the Syrian 
Gnostic Cerdon, then resident at Rome, he excogitated a doctrinal 
system based upon the irreconcilability of justice and grace, the law 
and the gospel, Judaism and Christianity. Because of this irrecon 
cilable antithesis, two principles must be admitted, both eternal and 
uncreated, a good God and a just but wicked God; the latter is 
the Creator of this world 3 . Moreover, not only should we reject 
the Old Testament as promulgated by the just and wicked God, 
but we must look on the New Testament as corrupted by the 
primitive apostles, who interpolated it with their Jewish ideas. Only 
Paul, the enemy of Judaism, and his disciple Luke, were faithful 
interpreters of the teachings of the Lord. Consequently, Marcion 

1 Praep. evang., vi. 10. 2 Hist. Arm., ii. 66. 3 Tert., Adv. Marc., i. 6. 


gave to his disciples a new Sacred Scripture in two parts: an 
stiaffsAioy and an d.noaro)dy.ov. This Marcionite Evangelium was 
a mutilated and variously disfigured production. The Apostolicum 
included ten manipulated letters of St. Paul: Galatians, First and Second 
Corinthians, Romans, First and Second Thessalonians, Laodiceans = 
Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. With the aid of 
several opponents of Marcion it is possible to reconstruct in large 
measure the original text of this Marcionite Bible 1 , which enjoyed 
canonical authority among the followers of the sect. Ephraem Syrus 
is witness to a Syriac version of it; by the time of Tertullian it had 
already been frequently reform ed 2 . To justify his recension of the 
Bible, Marcion composed a large work known as Antitheses (dvn- 
MOSIQ) in which he arranged, in parallel columns, sentences of the 
Old and the New Testament, and from their pretended antilogies con 
cluded that the two component parts of the Bible of the Church were 
irreconcilable. Hae sunt, says Tertullian, antitheses Marcionis, id 
est contrariae oppositiones , quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum 
lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum instrumenti diversi- 
tatem quoque argumententur deorum 3 . According to other state 
ments of Tertullian and of Ephraem Syrus the work of Marcion con 
tained not only an exposition of the principles of Marcionitic Chris 
tianity, but also a more or less detailed commentary on his own 
Bible. It seems that Marcion discussed in a Letter the reason of 
his abandonment of the Church 4 . - - Among his disciples Apelles 
was prominent as a writer. He turned from the dualism of Marcion 
to a certain monism, maintaining that the World-Creator was himself 
created by the good God. In his Syllogisms fffMo^iff/Jiol) he 
undertook to prove that in the books of Moses there was nothing 
but lies; hence they could not have God as their author. It was 
an extensive work, as may be imagined from the fact that the 
criticism of the biblical account of the fall of the first man was 
found in its thirty-eighth book 5 . In his Manifestations (tpavs-- 
POMJ&Q) Apelles described the pretended revelations of Philumena, a 
Roman female visionary 6 . The Gospel of Apelles first mentioned 
by Jerome 7 was probably nothing more than a later elaboration or 
a new recension of the Gospel of Marcion. 

A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig, 1884, 
pp. 316 341: Cerdon und Marcion ; pp. 522 543: Marcion und Ap- 
pelles. A. Harnack, De Appellis gnosi monarchica, Leipzig, 1874. H. U. 
Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, Leyden, 1888. For earlier tenta- 

1 Especially Tert., 1. c., v. Epiph., Haer., 42, and the author of Dialog. Adamantii 
de recta in Deum fide. 

2 Tert., 1. c., iv. 5; cf. De praescr. haeret., c. 42. 3 Adv. Marc., i. 19. 

4 Tert., 1. c., i. I ; iv. 4 ; De came Christi, c. 2. 5 Ambros., De parad., v. 28. 

6 Tert., De praescr. haeret., c. 30 ; De carne Christi, c. 6 ; al. 

7 Comm. in Matth., prol. 


tive reconstructions of the Gospel of Marcion cf. A.Hahn, 1823 and 1832; 
Hilgenfeld, 1850; G. Volckmar, 1852; also the work of W. C. van Manen 
(1887) on the reconstruction of Galatians according to Marcion. All such efforts 
are more or less antiquated since the work of Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. 
Kanons, ii. 409 529, Marcions Neues Testament (an essay in text- 
reconstruction); cf. ib. , i. 587 718, a criticism of the Bible of Marcion. 
A. Hahn, Antitheses Marcionis gnostici, liber deperditus, nunc quoad eius fieri 
potuit restitutus, Konigsberg, 1823. A. Harnack, Sieben neue Bruchstiicke 
der Syllogismen des Apelles (from Ambros., De parad., vi. 3032; vii. 35; 
viii. 38, 40, 41), in Texte und Untersuchungen (1890), vi. 3, in 120; cf. 
Harnack, ib., xx. ; new series (1900), v. 3, 93 100. F. J. J. Jackson, 
Christian Difficulties in the Second and Twentieth Centuries. Study of 
Marcion and his relation to modern thought, London, 1903. See G. Salmon, 
Marcion, in Diet, of Christian Biography, London, 1880, iii. 817 824. 

8. THE ENCRATITES. These heretics rejected as sinful both ma 
trimony and the use of meat and wine. The chief spokesmen of their 
doctrines in the second century were Tatian ( 18) and Julius Cas- 
sianus. About the year 170 the latter published at least two works: 
one entitled Ifyrynxd in several books 1 , and the other On con 
tinence or celibacy (xpi lyxparzcaQ rj its pi ZLtvo jyiaq) 2 . 

Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergesch. des Urchristentums, pp. 546 549. Zahn, 
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 632 636, 750. 

26. The Judaistic Literature. 

1. THE EBIONITES. The heretical group known as Ebionites saw 
in Jesus a son of Joseph, and denied His birth of the Blessed 
Virgin and the Holy Ghost 3 . Several of their authoritative books 
are mentioned by Epiphanius 4 , among others the so-called Journeys 
of Peter (see below) and the Gospel of the Ebionites ( 29, 3). 
Toward the end of the second century the Ebionite Symmachus, 
known also for his translation of the Old Testament into Greek, 
wrote an exegetical work in which he attacked the Gospel of 
St. Matthew 5 . It is supposed that this work is identical with that 
known to the Syrian writer Ebed Jesu (f 1318) as Liber Symmachi 
de distinctione praeceptorum. 

G. Mercati, L eta di Simmaco 1 interprete e S. Epifanio, Modena, 1892. 

2. THE ELKESAITES. These heretics, known also as Sampsaei, 
professed an odd mixture of Judaism, Christianity and Heathenism. 
Epiphanius tells us 6 that they possessed two symbolic books, one 
under the name of Elxai, founder of the sect, and another under 
the name of his brother Jexai. Both Epiphanius 7 and Hippolytus 8 
quote several passages from the Book of Elxai. The date of its 

1 Clem. Al., Strom., i. 21, 101 ; cf. Hier., Comm. in Gal. ad vi. 1 8. 

2 Clem. Al., Strom., iii. 13, 9192. 

3 Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 21, I ; v. I, 3. 4 Haer. 30. 

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 17; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. 54. 

6 Haer. 53, i. 7 Haer. 19, I ff . ; 53, i. 8 Philos., ix. 13 17. 


composition would be about the year 100, according to Hilgen- 
feld ; others locate it, more accurately, about the year 200. 

The fragments of the Book of Elxai are collected in Hilgenfeld, Novum 
Testamentum extra canonem rec., 2. ed., Leipzig, 1881, fasc. iii. 227 240; 
cf. Id., Judentum und Judenchristentum, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 103 ff. 

Under this title (KtyfiivTia) are usually collected certain writings 
that treat of the life of St. Clement of Rome, and pretend to have 
been written by him. They are the Recognitions of Clement, the 
Homilies, and two Letters. The ten books of the Recognitions are 
no longer extant in the original Greek, but only in a Latin version 
made by Rufinus of Aquileia, and in a Syriac revision. According 
to the Latin version Clement was much troubled in his youth by 
doubts concerning the immortality of the soul, the origin of the 
world, and similar matters. Hearing that the Son of God had 
appeared in Judaea he made a journey to the East, where he met 
the Apostle Peter, from whom he received the desired enlightenment. 
Thereupon he became his disciple and accompanied him on his 
journeys. At Caesarea he was witness to the dispute of St. Peter 
with Simon Magus (Recog. ii. 20 iii. 48). Somewhat later, Cle 
ment made known to the Apostle the circumstances of his early life. 
When he was five years of age, his mother, Matthidia, a relative of 
the Emperor, had fled from Rome as the result of a dream, taking 
with her his two elder brothers, the twins Faustinus and Faustus. 
They were sought for in vain ; indeed, his father Faustinianus never 
returned from the toilsome and fruitless journey he undertook in search 
of wife and children (vii. 8 10). But the long separated family was 
now to be re-united. During an excursion from Antharadus to the 
island of Aradus, St. Peter discovered in a beggar woman the mother 
of his disciple. Two other disciples and companions of the Apostle 
made themselves known as Faustinus and Faustus, the brothers of 
Clement. Finally the father Faustinianus was discovered by St. Peter. 
It is to this happy ending of the story that the work owes its 
peculiar title: Recognitiones = dvcrfvcoaeu;, dvafvwptffjuol. It was also 
known to antiquity by other titles, among them Uspiodot Uirpou or 
A/^ucvrtfC, Itinerarium, Historia, Gesta Clementis. The chief scope 
of the work, however, was not the story of the vicissitudes of 
St. Clement, but rather the recommendation of certain teachings of 
St. Peter that are interwoven with the narrative. The book is really 
a religious romance. In the Latin version the didactic exposition of 
the original is reproduced in a very incomplete way. In a preliminary 
remark Rufinus says that there were current two recensions of the 
Greek text (in graeco eiusdem operis dvaYvwaecov, hoc est recogni- 
tionum, duas editiones haberi), and that in both were found theological 


discussions (quaedam de ingenito Deo genitoque disserta et de aliis 
nonnullis), that he had thought it proper to omit. By a second 
recension of the workRufinus doubtless means the Homilies (bfiiXiat), the 
Greek text of which we possess. They are twenty in number, and are 
prefaced by two Letters of Peter and Clement, respectively, to James 
of Jerusalem. In the first letter Peter requests James to keep rigorously 
secret the discourses he has sent him (T&V IIJLOJV xypufjutdTcoV ac, 
HnefA<l>d GOI JcfiAovQ, c. ij. In the second Clement informs James that 
he had received episcopal consecration from Peter a little before the 
latter s death. He had also been instructed to send to James a 
lengthy report concerning his past life; he performs this duty by 
sending him an extract of the discourses that Peter had already sent 
to James. The work pretends therefore to have been sent to James 
under the title of Clement s Epitome of the Sermons made by Peter 
during his journeys (K^/JLSVTOQ rcov Ilirpoo iittdrjfiiwv xrjpi>YfJ.drwv 
entropy, c. 20), a title that recalls at once the pretended Journeys 
of Peter written by Clement (rale, neptodotg xaXoufiivatg IHrpoi> rale, 
dta KATJ/JLSVTOG rpavsicraicj, which Epiphanius (Haer. 30, 15) tells us 
was an Ebionite work. The story of Clement, as told in the Ho 
milies, is again a cover for the doctrinal teaching of Peter. With 
the exception of a few insignificant details (Horn. xii. 8) the story 
tallies in all essentials with that related in the Recognitions. The 
doctrinal ideas exhibit close conformity with those of the Elkesaites. 
The heathen elements of the Elkesaite teaching are no longer ap 
parent, but the essential identity of Christianity and Judaism is very 
energetically maintained. It is the same prophet who revealed himself 
in Adam,, Moses and Jesus. As it fell to Moses to restore the primitive 
religion when obscured and disfigured by sin, so the new revelation 
in Jesus had become necessary by reason of the gradual darkening 
and alteration of the original Mosaic revelation (Horn. ii. 38 ff.). 
Finally, the two Epitomes or Compendia omit the theological dis 
cussions, recapitulate the narrative of the Homilies, and relate the 
doings of St. Clement at Rome, together with his martyrdom. While 
both Recognitions and Homilies certainly antedate the Epitomes, the 
question of priority raised by the similarity of the subject matter 
of the Recognitions and the Homilies is not an easy one. It has 
been answered in so many contradictory ways, that there is an 
urgent need for a new examination of the problem. Hilgenfeld 
believes that the Recognitions are the earlier work, of which the 
Homilies offer us an enlargement. Uhlhorn maintains the priority of 
the Homilies, and Lehmann finds in the Recognitions two distinct 
sections, the first of which (Book I III) is older than the Homilies, 
while the second (Book IV X) is posterior to them. Langen 
places the composition of the Homilies at Caesarea toward the end 
of the second century, that of the Recognitions at Antioch about 



the beginning of the third century. Both works, however, he declares, 
are merely revisions, or rather polemical refutations of a still earlier 
work, written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, with the purpose 
of establishing at Rome the supreme ecclesiastical primacy. While it 
is likely enough that older writings have been embodied in the 
Clementines, as we now read them, the hypothesis of a primitive 
work of this character and tendency is both arbitrary and untenable. 
On the other hand, it is probably true that, in their traditional shape, 
the Clementines exhibit a Judaizing tendency, in so far as they desire 
to see the primacy transferred from Peter (and Clement) to James, 
from Rome to Jerusalem (or Caesarea and Antioch). 

The first printed edition of the Recognitions from the Latin version of 
Rufinus was published by J. Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d Estaples), Paris, 1504. 
An improved text was published by Cotelerius, Patres aevi apostolici, i., 
Paris, 1672. For other editions cf. Schoenemann , Bibl. hist.-litt. Patrum 
lat., i. 633 ff. The most recent is that of. G. Gersdorf, Leipzig, 1838 (Bibl. 
Patr. eccles. lat. sel., i; Migne, PG., i). dementis Romani Recognitiones 
syriace P. A. de Lagarde edidit, Leipzig and London, 1861. 

The Homilies were first edited by Cotelier (1. c.), but this edition did 
not go beyond the middle of the nineteenth Homily, where the manuscript 
ended from which the text was taken. Similarly the edition of A. Schwegler, 
Stuttgart, 1847. The complete text is reproduced in Migne (PG., ii), from 
the edition of A. R. M. Dressel, dementis Romani quae feruntur homiliae 
viginti mine primum integrae, Gottingen, 1853. P. de Lagarde was the 
first to publish (the Greek text without translation) an edition answering in 
all essentials to modern requirements : Clementina, edited by P. de Lagarde, 
Leipzig, 1865; the introduction (pp. 3 28) was reprinted by him in his 
Mitteilungen, Gottingen, 1884, pp. 26 54. A remark of Lagarde s is worth 
quoting: I think we shall not make any substantial progress without a 
proper and continuous commentary on the Clementine Recognitions and 
Homilies (Clementina, p. n). Rufinus version of the Letter of Clement to 
James, which even in the time of Rufinus was prefixed to the Recognitions, 
was edited anew by 0. F. Fritzsche, Epistola dementis ad Jacobum (progr.), 
Zurich, 1873. Dressel published both Epitomes: Clementinorum Epitome 
duae, Leipzig, 1859. A. Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Rekognitionen und 
Homilien, Jena, 1848. G. Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Rekognitionen des 
Clemens Romanus, Gottingen, 1854. J. Lehmann, Die clementinischen 
Schriften, Gotha, 1869. G. Frommberger, De Simone Mago. Pars prima: 
De origine Pseudo-Clementinoruni (Dissert, inaug.), Breslau, 1886. H. M. 
Tan Nes, Het Nieuxve Testament in de Clementinen (Dissert, inaug.), Amster 
dam, 1887. y. Langen, Die Clemensromane, Gotha, 1890. Cf. A. Brilll 
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1891), Ixxiii. 577 601 ; C. Bigg, The Clementine 
Homilies, in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica, Oxford, 1890, ii. 157 193; 
F. Hort, Notes introductory to the study of the Clementine Recognitions, 
London, 1901 ; J. Chapman, Origen and the Date of Pseudo-Clemens, in 
Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 436441 ; J. Franko, Beitrage aus 
dem Kirchenslavischen zu den Apokryphen des Neuen Testaments. I: Zu 
den Pseudo-Clementinen , in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. 
(1902), iii. 146155. For another and a later Clementine apocryphal 
writing cf. G. Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi 
e Testi, v), Rome, 1901, 80 81, 238 241. J. Bergmann, Les elements juifs 
dans les pseudo-Clementines, in Revue des etudes juives, 1903, pp. 59 98. 


H. U. Meyboom , De Clemens-Roman. Part I: Synoptische Vertaling van 
den Tekst, Groningen, 1902. Part II, Groningen, 1904. A. Hilgenfeld, Ori- 
genes und Pseudo-Clemens, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi. 
342 351. Chapman (1. c., p. 441) places the Clementines in early part of the 
fourth century; cf. Kellner, in Theol. Revue (1903), ii. 421 422. H, Waitz, 
Die Pseudo-Clementinen, Homilien und Rekognitionen. Eine quellenkritische 
Untersuchung (Texte und Untersuchungen [Leipzig 1904], x. 4). A. Hilgen- 
feld, Pseudo- Clemens in moderner Fac,on, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. 
Theol., 1904, pp. 545 567. A. C. Headlam, The Clementine Literature, in 
Journal of Theol. Studies (1901), iii. 41 58. F. H. Chase, The Clementine 
Literature, in Hastings Diet, of the Bible (1900), art. Peter, p. 775. 

27. The Montanist Literature. 

Montanism arose in Phrygia and called itself the new prophecy , 
the completion of the revelation made by God to man. In their 
ecstatic exaltation or delirium Montanus and his female companions, 
Priscilla (Prisca) and Maximilla, pretended to be the organs of the 
Paraclete ; they were to be its voice, not so much for the communi 
cation of new truths of faith as for new and higher demands upon 
Christian life. Certain collections of oracles of the prophetic tri- 
folium -- countless books , says Hippolytus 1 - - were held by the 
Montanists as equal in authority to the books of biblical revelation. 
They were held to be new Scriptures , says the Roman priest 
Gains 2 . They had also for use in their meetings new spiritual 
chants or Psalms 3 . The work of the Montanist writer Asterius Ur- 
banus, cited 4 by an anonymous Antimontanist in 192 193, was 
probably a collection of oracular replies. The Antimontanist work 
of the apologist Miltiades ( 19, i) gave his opponents an occasion 
to reply 5 . Themison, prominent among the Montanists of Phrygia, 
imitated the Apostle and wrote a Catholic Letter, i. e. addressed to 
all Christians 6 . Early in the third century a certain Proclus wrote in 
defence of Montanism at Rome 7 . The most brilliant convert to the 
new prophecy was Tertullian of Carthage ( 50). 

G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881. 
A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums , Leipzig, 1884, 
pp. 560601 : Die Kataphryger. Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. 
des neutestamentl. Kanons und der altkirchl. Literatur, Erlangen and Leipzig, 
l8 93; v - 3 57 : Die Chronologic des Montanismus*. 

28. The New Testament Apocrypha. 

I. GENERAL NOTIONS. The term, New Testament Apocrypha, 
is given to a widely ramified class of writings that imitate those 

1 Philos., viii. 19. 2 Apud Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 20, 3. 

3 Tert., Adv. Marc., v. 8; De anima, c. 9. 

4 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 16, 17. 5 Ih., v. 17, i. 

6 Apollonius apud Eus., \. c., v. 18, 5. 

7 Gaius apud Eus., \. c., iii. 31, 4. 


of the New Testament. The subject-matter is the same, and usually 
these works are attributed to the authors of the New Testament. 
In view of their form and plan they may be divided like the canon 
ical Scriptures into Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Letters of the 
Apostles, and Apocalypses. In origin and tendency they are partly 
works of heretical and partisan authors, and partly works of edi 
fication written with good intentions. Indeed, the silence of the New 
Testament concerning the youth of our Lord, the life of His Mother, 
and the later history of the Apostles, seemed especially destined to 
excite pious imaginations ; in this way sprang up about the trunk of 
the historico-canonical Scriptures a wild and luxurious vegetation of 
legends. But the majority of the Apocrypha, especially the Gospels 
and Acts of the Apostles, were written for the purpose of propagating 
the doctrines of some particular heresy. Among the Gnostics especially 
this kind of literature spread with almost unearthly rapidity. All 
those Apocrypha that affect more or less an historical form are 
characterized especially, from a literary point of view, by a certain 
weirdness, extravagance and absurdity. It has been often and rightly 
remarked that the relations of the apocryphal historiography to 
the historical books of the New Testament are such as to bring 
out very clearly the purity and truth of the canonical narratives. 
Withal, the apocryphal legends and romances have played a pro 
minent role in history. Their subject-matter was very attractive; 
hence in many lands they furnished the material for pious reading 
or conversation, and were in a way the spiritual nourishment of the 
people. Not only did harmless legends meet with acceptance and 
approval, but several distinctly heretical works, revised and stripped 
of their errors, continued to affect Christian thought long after the 
disappearance of their original circle of readers. 

The most important of the older collections of New Testament Apo 
crypha is that of the well-known literary historian y. A. Fabridus , Codex 
apocryphus Novi Testament!, 2 voll., Hamburg, 17031719. The first 
volume was reprinted in 1719, the second in 1743. J. C. Thilo planned 
as his life-work a complete critical collection ; apart from separate editions 
of several apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, he prepared only the first 
volume of his projected work ; it offers an entirely new, and in every way 
admirable, recension of many apocryphal Gospels : Codex apocryphus Novi 
Testament!, Leipzig, 1832, i. A work of much less value is the edition 
brought out by W. Giles , containing chiefly apocryphal Gospels : Codex 
apocryphus Novi Testament!, 2 voll., London, 1853. Since then there 
have appeared only collective editions of specific groups of New Testament 
Apocrypha, Gospels, Acts, etc. (cf. pp. 87 ff.). H. Hilgenfeld , Novum 
Testamentum extra canonem receptum, fasc. iv, Leipzig, 1866, 2. ed., 1884. 
M. Rh. James, Apocrypha anecdota, Cambridge, 1893 (Texts and Studies, 
ii. 3). Id., Apocrypha anecdota, 2. series, Cambridge, 1897 (Texts and 
Studies, v. i). P. Lacan , Fragments d Apocryphes coptes de la Biblio- 
theque Nationale, publics dans les Memoires de la Mission franchise 
d archeologie orientale, Le Caire, 1904. 


The editions of the Syriac Apocrypha of the New Testament are in 
dicated by E. Nestle, in his Syrische Grammatik , 2. ed., Berlin, 1888, 
Litteratura, 27 ff . ; cf. Nestle, in Realencykl. fiir prot. Theol. und Kirche, 
Leipzig, 3. ed., 1897, iii. 168. R. Duval, La litterature syriaque, Paris, 1899 
(Biblioth. de 1 enseignement de 1 histoire ecclesiastique. Anciennes littera- 
tures chretiennes, ii.), pp. 95 120, with corrections and additions, Paris, 
1900, pp. 20 21. For the Apocrypha in Old-Slavonic cf. N. Bonwetsch 
apud Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 902 917. For the Coptic 
Apocrypha cf. C. Schmidt apud Harnack 1. c., i. 919 924. R. Basset, Les 
Apocryphes ethiopiens traduits en franc, ais, Paris, 1893 ff. Cf. James, Apo 
crypha anecd., 2. series, pp. 166 ff. Recent collections of versions: K. Fr. 
Borberg, Bibliothek der neutestamentl. Apokryphen, Stuttgart, 1841, vol. i. 
(the only volume printed). Migne, Dicdonnaire des Apocryphes, 2 voll., Paris, 
18561858. -- Movers (Kaulen) , Apokryphen und Apokryphenliteratur, 
in Kirchenlexikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2. ed., Freiburg, 1882, i. 1036 to 
1084, a profoundly erudite study. R. Hofmann, Apokryphen des Neuen 
Testamentes, in Realencykl. fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, Leipzig, 3. ed., 1896, 
i. 653 670. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung in das 
Neue Testament, 2. ed., Freiburg, 1886, pp. 534 554: Die neutestament- 
lichen Apokryphen . E. Preuschen, Die Reste der aufterkanonischen Evan- 
gelien und urchristlichen Uberlieferungen, Gieften, 1901. B. Pick, The 
Extra-Canonical Life of Christ, New York, 1903. James de Quincy Donehoo, 
The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, New York, 1903. E. H. 
Chase, Encyclopedia Biblica. 

2. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. By far the greater part of the Apo 
cryphal Gospels that have been preserved, or are in any way known 
to us, were written in the first three centuries by Gnostics, with the 
purpose of lending an apostolic sanction to their doctrines. Not a 
few of these works enjoyed in particular Gnostic sects or group of 
sects an authority identical with or similar to that of the canonical 
Gospels in the Catholic Church. We have mentioned the Diatessaron 
ofTatian ( 18, 3), the Gospel of Basilides ( 25, 2), the Valentinian 
Gospel of the Truth ( 25, 5), the Gospel of Marcion and Apelles 
( 25, 7) etc., and shall have occasion to mention others. If we 
look at the structure and content of the apocryphal gospels we see 
that some are based on the canonical books whose material they 
develop under the influence of their own doctrines; others invent their 
stories quite freely. The latter treat of the youth of our Lord or of 
His actions after the Resurrection. As early as the time of St. Irenaeus, 
the Gnostics were wont to lament the silence of the Gospels about 
the life of Jesus Christ before His Baptism and after His Resurrection ; 
they also relate that, after the latter, He spent eighteen months on 
earth in order to initiate more profoundly some privileged disciples 
in the mysteries of His teaching *. The Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, and the Ebionite Gospel, belong to other heretical or 
sectarian communities; the Protevangelium Jacobi is the product of 
ecclesiastical circles. 

1 Adv. haer., i. 30, 14; cf. i. 3, 2. 


Evangelia apocrypha, edidit C. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1853, 2. ed., 
1876. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, Cambridge, 1896 (Texts 
and Studies, iv. 2). M. N. Speranskij , The Slavonic Apocryphal Gos 
pels (Russian), Moscow, 1895. E. Preuschen , Antilegomena. Die Reste 
der aufterkanonischen Evangelien und urchristlichen Uberlieferungen, 
Gieften, 1901. 

R. Clemens, Die geheim gehaltenen oder sog. apokryphischen Evange 
lien, ins Deutsche iibertragen, Stuttgart, 1852. B. H. Cowper, The Apo 
cryphal Gospels and other Documents relating to the history of Christ, 
translated from the originals, 6. ed., London, 1897. C. Tischendorf, De 
evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu, The Hague, 1891. R. A. Lipsius, 
Apocryphal Gospels, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr. (London, 1880), ii. 700 717. 
A. Tappchorn, Aufierbiblische Nachrichten oder die Apokryphen liber die 
Geburt, Kindheit und das Lebensende Jesu und Maria, Paderborn, 1885. 
Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, 
ii. 621 797: Uber apokryphe Evangelien. J. G. Tasker, (art.) Apo- 
cryphal Gospels in Hastings Diet, of the Bible (extra vol.), 1904, pp. 420 
to 438. Battifol, (art.) Evangiles Apocryphes in Vigour oux, Diet, de la 
Bible. Tome II, col. 2114 2118. 

3. APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. The ancient traditions 
concerning the lives and deaths of the Apostles were soon enriched, 
for many reasons, with an abundance of fabulous tales ; according 
as this narrative-material was committed to writing, there took place 
a still stronger colouring of these stories. The Apocryphal Acts of 
the Apostles are in reality religious romances. Some of them seek 
merely to satisfy a pious curiosity. Most of them, however, under 
the cover of marvellous and pleasure-giving tales, tend to create an 
opening for heretical doctrines that are artfully insinuated in them. 
In his commentary on the apocryphal Third Letter to the Corinthians, 
Ephraem Syrus reproaches the followers of Bardesanes with having 
changed the missionaries of the Lord into preachers of the impiety 
of Bardesanes. Later, especially since the beginning of the fifth 
century, a certain Leucius, or, as Photius writes it 1 , Leucius Charinus, 
is very often mentioned as the writer of heretical Acts of the Apostles, 
especially of Acts of St. John. The earliest traces of this very 
dubious personality are found in Epiphanius 2 and Pacianus 3 . It is 
probable that in the introduction to the Acts of John, which have 
reached us only in a very fragmentary state, the author made himself 
known as Leucius, a disciple of the Apostle. Probably the same 
hand wrote the equally Gnostic Acts of Peter and perhaps the no 
less Gnostic Acts of Andrew. Many Gnostic Acts were worked 
over at a later date by Catholics, in such a way as to retain, with 
more or less consistency, the tales about the journeys and miracles 
of the Apostles, while the heretical discourses and teachings were 
cut out. The original Gnostic texts have generally perished, while 
the Catholic revisions of the same have been preserved, at least 

1 Bibl. Cod. 114. 2 Haer. 51, 6. 

3 Ep. i. ad Sympr., c. 2. 


in fragments. Of the Acts of the Apostles written originally by 
Catholics only a few remnants have reached our time. 

Foremost and epoch-making among the works on the Apocryphal Acts 
of the Apostles is that by R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten 
und Apostellegenden, 2 voll., Braunschweig 1883 1890, with a supplemen 
tary fascicule. Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, edidit C. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 
1851. Cf. Additamenta ad Acta Apostolorum apocrypha in Tischendorf, 
Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig, 1886, xlvii 1. 137 167. Acta Aposto 
lorum apocrypha, post C. Tischendorf denuo ediderunt R. A. Lipsius et 
M. Bonnet. Pars prior, Leipzig, 1891. Partis alterius vol. i., 1898. Supple- 
mentum codicis apocryphi i: Acta Thomae. Edidit M. Bonnet, Leipzig, 
1883. Suppl. cod. apocr. ii: Acta Andreae. Ed. M. Bonnet, Paris, 1895. 

For similar apocryphal material in Syriac, cf. W. Wright, Apocryphal 
Acts of the Apostles, 2 voll., London, 1871. /. Guidi has edited (Rendi- 
conti della Regia Accademia dei Lincei, 1887 1888) and translated into 
Italian (Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana [1888], ii. r 66) some 
Coptic fragments of Acts of the Apostles. Other fragments were published 
in 1890 by O. von Lemm. For further detail cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen 
Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, Supplement, pp. 98 ff., 259 if. 
Id., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 
1880, i. 17 32. S. C. Malan translated into English (1871) an Ethiopic 
collection (from the Coptic through the Arabic) of Acts of the Apostles, 
under the title Conflicts of the Apostles. E. A. W. Budge began the 
publication of the Ethiopic text with an English translation, vol. i, London, 
1899, vol. ii (the last), 1901. A. v. Gutschmid , Die Konigsnamen in den 
apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (Rhein. Museum fur Philol. , new series 
[1864], xix. 161 183, 380 401, reprinted inKleine Schriften vonA. v. Gut 
schmid, herausgeg. von Fr. Riihl, Leipzig, 1890, ii. 332 394. Zahn, Gesch. 
des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 797 910: Uber apokryphe Apo- 
kalypsen und Apostelgeschichten . Duchesne , Les anciens recueils des 
legendes apostoliques (Compte rendu du III. Congres scientifique internat. 
des Catholiques, section v (Bruxelles, 1895), pp. 67 79. 

the long series of Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, there are but few 
similar documents in the shape of special Letters, unconnected with 
larger works. During the first three or four centuries we come across 
only a few Letters or Collections of Letters current under the name 
of St. Paul. The apocryphal third Letter to the Corinthians, ori 
ginally a part of the apocryphal Acta Pauli, enjoyed for a time 
canonical authority in the churches of Syria and Armenia. 

There is no special edition of all the Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles. 
Cf. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 565 621: Unechte 

5. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES. An Apocalypse of Peter has reached 
us in fragments. It belongs to the first half of the second century; 
all other apocryphal Apocalypses bearing New Testament names are 
of a later date. 

Apocalypses apocryphae. Maximam partem nunc primum edidit C. 
Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1866. Zahn, 1. c., ii. 2, 797 910: Uber apokryphe 
Apokalypsen und Apostelgeschichten*. R. A. Lipsius, Apocryphal Apo 
calypses, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1880, i. 130 132. 


29. Apocryphal Gospels. 

1. A PAPYRUS-FRAGMENT. A small fragment of a third-century 
papyrus-codex discovered at Fayum in Middle Egypt treats of certain 
prophecies of the Lord concerning the scandal of his disciples and 
the denial of Peter. It offers a parallel to Mt. xxvi. 30 34 and 
Mk. xiv. 26 30. Bickell and others look on it as one of those lost 
evangelical narratives of which Luke speaks in the prologue of his 
Gospel. It is possible, however, that it is merely a loose quotation 
from Matthew or Mark, and has drifted down as a relic from some 
homily or other writing. 

The fragment has been several times edited and commented on by 
G. Bickell, first in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol. (1885), ix. 498 504, and finally 
in Mitteihmgen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (1892), 
v. 78 82. Cf. Ad. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1889), v. 4, 
481 497. He thinks it a Gospel-fragment. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neu- 
testamentl. Kanons, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, ii. 2, 780 790: in his 
opinion it is a loose quotation from the Gospels. P. Sam, in Revue Biblique 
(1892), i. 321344, and in Litterattira cristiana antica, Studi critici del 
P. Paolo Savi barnabita, raccolti e riordinati dal can. Fr. Polese , Siena, 
1899, pp. 123 145, thought that it looked more like a fragment of a 
Gospel than a loose quotation from one. 

(f 1781) there is frequent mention in modern Gospel -criticism of 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews (TO ## ^Eftpalooc, edaffshov, 
Evangelium secundum sen juxta Hebraeos). It is known to us only 
through stray references in ancient ecclesiastical writers such as 
St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, 
St. Jerome, and others. A decisive authority attaches to the statements 
of St. Jerome. To the evidence of earlier writers that the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews had been written in Hebrew, he added 
the specific information: chaldaico quidem syroque sermone, sed 
hebraicis litteris scriptum est, i. e. it was composed in Aramaic, 
but transliterated in Hebrew *. About 390 Jerome translated it 2 from 
Aramaic into Greek and Latin; both versions together with the 
original have fallen a prey to the ravages of time. Perhaps the 
quotations in Clement of Alexandria and Origen are proof that long 
before St. Jerome there existed a Greek version of this Gospel. As to 
its contents, we may gather from St. Jerome and the other witnesses 
that it was closely related to the canonical Gospel of Matthew, 
though not identical with it. They were alike in their general dis 
position and in many more or less characteristic details; the dif 
ferences consisted in numerous minor additions which in the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews amplified and completed the subject-matter 
of Matthew. Apart from the original language of the former, it 

1 Dial. adv. Pelag., iii. 2. 2 De viris illustr., c. 2. 


was the unanimous opinion of the entire ancient Church that the 
Gospel of Matthew had been composed in Aramaic. Hence it is 
not easy to avoid the hypothesis that the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews was merely a revision and enlargement of the Gospel of 
Matthew. It cannot have been composed later than about the middle 
of the second century, since Hegesippus knew it and made use of 
it *. The Aramaic-speaking Judaeo-Christians of Palestine and Syria 
were known as Hebrews. Jerome always uses the term Nazaraei 
for those who read and venerate the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; 
on one occasion he calls them Nazaraeans and Ebionites 2 ; Epiphanius 
distinguishes 3 the Nazaraeans , generally orthodox, from the clearly 
heterodox Ebionites. The title TO xatf l Ef)paioo &jo.f~(ihov was 
evidently fashioned after the formula sdaffehov xara Marftatov; it 
very probably meant no more than the exclusive use of that Gospel 
in Hebrew circles. 

E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, London, 1879. 
Hilgenfeld , Nov. Test, extra can. rec., fasc. iv (2. ed. , Leipzig, 1884), 
5 31; cf. Id., in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1884), xxvii. 188 194; 
(1889), xxxii. 280 302. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, Gieften, 1901, pp. 3 8; 
D. Gla, Die Originalsprache des Matthausevangeliums, Paderborn and Miinster, 
1887, pp. 101 121 R. Handmann, Das Hebraerevangelium (Texte und 
Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1888, v. 3); Th. Za/m, Gesch. des neutestamentl. 
Kanons, ii. 2, 642 723 (an excellent investigation); Harnack, Gesch. der 
altchristl. Literatur, ii. i, 631 651. 

EBIONITES. Under the name of Gospel of the Twelve (which 
we meet first in Origen) 4 , as translated by St. Jerome: Evangelium 
iuxta duodecim Apostolos, we are not to understand the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews 5 , but rather the Gospel of the Ebionites, 
i. e. of those Judaeo-Christians who held Jesus for no more than the 
son of Joseph. This Gospel has also perished ; according to St. Epi 
phanius 6 it was a compilation made for their purpose from the 
canonical Gospels. The twelve Apostles seem to have been intro 
duced in the role of narrators 7 . It certainly was written in Greek, 
probably about 150 200. 

Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec., fasc. iv, 2. ed., Leipzig, 1884, 
pp. 32 38. Preuschen, Antilegomena, pp. 9 n. Zahn, Gesch. des neu 
testamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 724 742. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lite 
ratur, ii. i, 625 631. Zahn in Neue kirchliche Zeitschr. (1900), xi. 361 370, 
believes that some Coptic fragments edited by A. Jakoby (Ein neues Evan- 
geliumfragment, Straftburg, 1900) and by him assigned to the Gospel of 
the Egyptians (see below), are really fragments of the Gospel of the Twelve. 

1 Riis., Hist, eccl., iv. 22, 8. 

2 Comm. in Matth. ad xii. 13. * Haer. 29 30. 

4 Horn. i. in Lucam : TO TWV dwds~/.a 

5 Hier., Dial. adv. Pelag., iii. 2. 6 Haer. 30. 
1 Epiph., Haer. 30, 13. 


Despite the similarity of title, the latter has no relation with the text pub 
lished by y. Jtendel Harris, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, together 
with the Apocalypses of each one of them, edited from the Syriac ms., etc., 
Cambridge, 1900. Cf. Bessarione VIII (19031904), vol. v. 1421, 157 176, 
for a French translation by E, Revittout of some unedited Coptic frag 
ments that he thinks belong to the Gospel of the Twelve. 

4. THE GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. Clement of Alexandria is 
the first to mention 1 a Gospel of the Egyptians (TO XO.T AlfUTtriotx; 
edaffshovj, with the observation that it contained a dialogue of the 
Lord with Salome, quoted by the Encratites (Julius Cassianus) to 
show that marriage should be abolished. Hippolytus says 2 that 
the Naassenes made use of expressions from the Gospel of the 
Egyptians (TO Ixifpayopsvov XUT AlfonriooQ etiaffehovj in defence 
of their theories on the soul (and the transmigration of souls?). 
Epiphanius 3 says that the Sabellians established their entire error 
and in particular their Modalistic doctrine of the Trinity, on the 
Egyptian Gospel (TO xa/M jjLtzvov Al-foxTtov etjafflfaovj. In the so- 
called Second Letter to the Corinthians (12, 2) there is a reference 
to the above-mentioned dialogue of Salome with the Lord. It is 
doubtful whether this author used the Egyptian Gospel and indeed 
whether he drew from any written Gospel. That the Gospel was 
an heretical one is proven by the circles in which it was most wel 
come Encratites, Naassenes, Sabellians; in the words addressed to 
Salome the Lord is made to preach the Pythagorean theory of numbers. 
The work was very probably composed in Egypt about 150. In 
the territory of ancient Oxyrhynchus, in Lower Egypt, among the 
debris of a mound of ruins, there was recently found a papyrus folio 
containing seven Sayings, or mutilated fragments of Sayings, that 
all begin with the formula )Afe.i lytrouQ. Some of these Sayings are 
quite similar, in their entirety or in part, to words of our Lord in 
the canonical Gospels ; most of them are quite foreign to the canonical 
tradition and could never have been pronounced by our Saviour. 
The folio probably belongs to a book of excerpts from some^ apo 
cryphal Gospel. The most natural suggestion, owing to the place 
of its discovery and the Encratite tendency of some of the Sayings, 
is that they were taken from the Gospel of the Egyptians. 

Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec., 2. ed., 1884, fasc. iv, pp. 42 48. 
Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 628642. Harnack, Gesch. 
der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i, 612 622. B. P. Gr en fell and A. S. Hunt, 
Afya ITJSOU, London, 1897. They are also found in Grenfell and Hunt, 
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, London, 1898, i. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, 
pp. 43 44. For the discussions raised by the finding of these Sayings*, cf. 
Holtzmann inTheol. Jahresbericht (1897), xvii. 115 sq. ; (1898), xviii. 148 sq., 
also Harnack, Uber die jiingst entdeckten Spriiche Jesu, Freiburg, 1897. 
G. Esser in the Katholik (1898), i. 2643, 137 151- Ch. Taylor, The Oxy- 

1 Strom., iii. 9, 63; 13, 93. 2 Philos., v. 7. 3 Haer. 62, 2. 


rhynchus Logia, Oxford, 1899. A. von Schoh in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), 
Ixxxii. i 22. A. Chiapelli in Nuova Antologia, 4. series (1897), Ixxi. 
524 534. U. Fracassini in Rivista Bibliografica Italiana (1898), iii. 513 518. 
G. Semeria, Le Parole di Gesu recentemente scoperte e 1 ultima fase della 
critica evangelica, Genova, 1898. For an extensive collection of extra- 
canonical Sayings of Jesus, cf. A. Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1898 (Texte 
und Untersuchungen, v. 4), and J. H. Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, die in 
den kanonischen Evangelien nicht iiberliefert sind, 1896 (ib., xiv. 2). 

C. G. Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ, Words of Our 
Lord not recorded in the four Gospels, including those recently discovered, 
Cambridge, 1903. A new series of Logia from the papyri of Oxyrhynchus 
is promised. 

5. THE GOSPEL OF PETER. Until 1892, the Gospel of Peter was 
known to us only through a few references in ancient writers. The 
most important of these was found in Eusebius J , in a fragment of a 
letter of Serapion, bishop of Antioch (about 200), to the Christians of 
the neighbouring Rhossus or Rhosus on the coast of Syria. He forbids 
therein the reading of a pseudo-Petrine Gospel (ovopart IHrpoo s f j- 
affihov), which by certain additions (npoadtsffra^fJLiva) to the genuine 
teaching of the Saviour was made to favour Docetism, and had been in 
use among Docetic-minded Christians of Antioch and Rhossus. It is very 
probable that to the same text belongs a Gospel-fragment edited in 1892 
by Bouriant from an eighth-century codex, which contains the principal 
part of the Lord s Passion, together with an account of the Resur 
rection, very diffuse and highly embellished with quite curious mira 
culous tales. The work bears internal evidence of being a remnant 
of a pseudo-Petrine writing (But I, Simon Peter , v. 60; But I, 
with my companions v. 26). Doceto-Gnostic ideas are also visible 
in it (But he was silent as one who felt no grief at all v. 10, 
in reference to the Lord upon the Cross; cf. v. 19). Von Schubert 
has proved that the author had before him the four Gospels, and 
took certain features of his story now from one and now from another, 
transforming at the same time the canonical narratives in the interest 
of his own peculiar tendencies. His particular aim is to make the 
Jews alone responsible for the death of the Lord, and to present the 
Roman authorities in a light favourable to Christ and the Christians. 
It was very probably composed, about the middle of the second 
century, at Antioch in Doceto-Gnostic circles. There is no foundation 
for the attempt to identify it with the work referred to by St. Justin 
Martyr as dxofjwyfjLOvetifJLaTa flsTpo j 2 . The work referred to under 
that title in the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 1 06), is the canonical 
Gospel of Mark, not the Gospel of Peter. According to Eusebius 3 
this Gospel was used more or less exclusively by heretics. 

The codex discovered by U. Bouriant in a Christian tomb at Akhmim, 
the ancient Panopolis, in Upper Egypt, contains, besides the above men- 

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 12, 3-6. z Just., Dial. c. Tryph., c. 106. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6 7; cf. iii. 3, 2. 


tioned text, an Apocalypse of Peter ( 32, i) and important remnants of 
the Greek Book of Enoch. The discoverer was the first to publish these 
texts in Memoires publics par les membres de la Mission archeologique 
franchise au Caire, Paris, 1892, ix., fasc. i, pp. 91 147, with a facsimile 
of the whole codex and an introduction by A. Lods, ib. ; ix., fasc. 3 (Paris, 
1893). A facsimile of the pages containing the Petrine fragments, and an 
accurate recension of the same/ were soon after published by O. von Geb- 
hardt, Das Evangelium und die Apokalypse des Petrus, Leipzig, 1893. The 
text is also in Preuscheu, Antilegomena, pp. 1418; cf. pp. 13 14. The 
remnants of the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Kerygma Petri, 
were edited by E. Klostermann and H. Lietzmann, in Kleine Texte fiir theol. 
Vorlesungen und Ubungen, Apocrypha i, Bonn, 1903. An English trans 
lation was made by y. Armitage Robinson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. 
ed. 1885), ix. 7 8. For the literary deluge that followed the dis 
covery of these fragments cf. H. Liidemann, in Theol. Jahresbericht (1892), 
xii. 171 173; (1893), xiii. 171 181; (1894), xiv. 185 ff. It will be enough 
to indicate the following: Ad. Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und 
der Apokalypse des Petrus (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix. 2), Leipzig, 
1893; 2. ed., ib., 1898. Funk, Fragmente des Evangeliums und der Apo 
kalypse des Petrus, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1893), Ixxv. 255288. Th. Zahn, 
Das Evangelium des Petrus, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1893. H. von Schubert, 
Die Komposition des pseudopetrinischen Evangelienfragments (with a syn 
optical table), Berlin, 1893. D. Volter , Petrusevangelium oder Agypter- 
evangelium? Tubingen, 1893. He is of opinion that the fragment belongs 
to the Egyptian Gospel (see p. 92). E. Piccolomini, Sul testo dei frammenti 
dell Evangelic e dell Apocalissi del Pseudo-Petro, Rome, 1899. S. Minocchi, 
II Nuovo Testamento tradotto ed annotato, Roma, 1900, pp. 385 391, a 
partial version of the Gospel of Peter. V. H. Stanton, The Gospel of Peter : 
Its History and Character considered in relation to the history of the re 
cognition in the Church of the canonical Gospels, in Journal of Theo 
logical Studies (1900), ii. i 25. Stocks, Zum Petrusevangelium, in Neue 
kirchl. Zeitschr. (1902), xiii. 276 314; ib. (1903), pp. 515542. H.Usener, 
Eine Spur des Petrusevangeliums (in the Acts of St. Pancratios of Taor- 
mina), in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 353 358. 
F. H. Chase, (art.) Peter 10. (i) The Gospel of Peter , in Hastings 
Diet, of the Bible (1900), vol. Ill, p. 776. 

of Matthias 1 seems to have been identical with the Traditions of 
Matthias 2 often cited by Clement of Alexandria, a Gnostic work, 
especially favoured by the Basilidians 3 and probably used by Ba- 
silides himself and his son Isidore 4 . The Gospel of Philip was also 
of Gnostic origin. The name is first found in Epiphanius 5 , and it 
was probably known to the Gnostic author of Pistis Sophia 6 , between 
250 and 300. The Gospel of Thomas was also a Gnostic product. It 
is mentioned by Hippolytus 7 and Origen 8 and very probably existed 
before the time of Irenaeus 9 . In its actual forms, Greek, Latin, 
Syriac, Slavonic, it is only an abbreviated and expurgated copy of 

1 Orig., Horn. I in Luc. Ens. 1. c , iii. 25, 67. 

* Clem. Al., Strom., ii. 9, 45; vii. 13, 82: Ttapaduatiq Mar&iou. 

3 Ib., vii. 17, 108. 4 Hippol., Philos., vii. 20. 

5 Haer. 26, 13. 6 Cf. the edition of Schwartze-Fetertnann, pp. 69 ff. 

7 Philos., v. 7. 8 Hoin. I in Luc. 9 Adv. haer., i. 20, i 


the original work; the longer and perhaps the older of the various 
recensions bears in Tischendorf the title : 0(o/j.a lapayttToo (pdoaoyoo 
faro, dc, ra xaidr/M. TOO xopiou. It is addressed to the Christians 
converted from heathenism (c. i) and relates a series of miracles said 
to have been performed by Christ from the fifth to the twelfth year 
of His youth. The Divine Child is presented to us utterly without 
dignity, and is made to exhibit His miraculous powers in a manner 
at the very best quite puerile. The style is vulgar, and the diction 
is as common as the content is disgusting. 

For the Gospel and Traditions of Matthias cf. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des 
neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 751 761; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. 
Literatur, i. 17 f . ; ii. i, 595598. For the Gospel of Philip cf. Zahn, 1. c., 
ii. 2, 761 768; Harnack, 1. c., i. 14 f. ; ii. i, 592 ff. The longer of the 
two Greek recensions of the Gospel of Thomas was edited by J. A. Min- 
garelli, in Nuova Raccolta d opuscoli scientifici e filologici, Venezia, 1764, 
xii. 73 155-, by y. C. Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipzig, 
1832, i. 275 315 (cf. LXXII xci); by C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apo 
crypha (2. ed., Leipzig, 1876), pp. 140 157 (cf. xxxvi XLVIII). Tischen 
dorf^. c., pp. 158 163) added a shorter Greek recension to the longer one 
and (pp. 164 1 80) a Latin Tractatus de pueritia Jcsu secundum Thomam. 
W. Wright translated and published a Syriac version in Contributions to 
the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, London, 1865, pp. n 16 
for the Syriac, pp. 6 IT for the Flnglish text. For the Slavonic recensions 
cf. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, 1. c., i. 910. A German version of the longer 
Greek recension in Thilo is found in K. Fr. Borberg, Bibliothek der neu 
testamentl. Apokryphen, Stuttgart, 1841, i. 57 84; L. Conrady, Das Thomas- 
evangelium, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1903), Ixxvi. 378 459. For 
the Gospel of Thomas cf. Zahn, 1. c., ii. 2, 768 773; Harnack, 1. c., i 
15 17; ii. i, 593 595. E. Kuhn attempted, unsuccessfully, to prove the 
Buddhistic origin of the stories in the Gospel of St. Thomas concerning 
the marvellous knowledge shown in the village school by the Divine Child a . 
Festgabe zum fiinfzigjahrigen Doktorjubilaum of A. Weber, Leipzig, 1896, 
pp. 116 119. 

7. THE PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI. A much better impression is 
created by the so-called Protevangelium Jacobi, which gives an 
account of the life of the Blessed Virgin until the Slaughter of the 
Innocents at Bethlehem. The names of her parents are here given 
for the first time as Joachim and Anna. The diction is chaster, the 
whole tone of the narrative more noble, and the contents more inter 
esting and important than in most other apocrypha. The author calls 
himself Jacobus, and his book a History (jLOTopia, c. 25,1). The 
title of Protevangelium (TCptoTSuaffiXiov)) i. e. primum evangelium, 
was given the work by G. Postel (f 1581). There are difficulties in 
the way of admitting a single authorship for the text as found in 
the manuscripts. In the narrative of the birth of the Lord (cc. 1 8, 2; 
19, i 2) there is no introduction, and Joseph appears suddenly on 
the scene speaking in the first person. The closing chapters (22 24), 

1 Cf. cc. 6 and 14 of the longer Greek recension, and Iren., Adv. haer., i. 20, I. 


in which are related the persecution of John the Baptist on the 
occasion of the Slaughter of the Innocents, and the execution of 
his father Zacharias by order of Herod, seem to be later ad 
ditions. The first express mention of the work (at least of its original 
nucleus) is by Origen 1 , but traces of it are found with sufficient cer 
tainty in the writings of Justin 2 . Its composition is, therefore, 
generally referred to the first decades of the second century. The 
author was certainly a Judseo-Christian, not from Palestine, perhaps, 
but from Egypt or Asia Minor. There is no sufficient foundation 
for the hypothesis of Conrady that the Greek text is a translation 
of a Hebrew original. In so far as it deals with biblical material, 
the Gospel is based on the narratives of Matthew and Luke; the 
features relative to the time before the espousals of Joseph and 
Mary tend to glorify the Mother of God, but have no historical value. 
The edifying tendency of the book is responsible for its wide diffusion 
and the great influence it has exercised. 

The editio princeps of the Greek text is that of M. Neander , Basle, 
1564. The best editions are those of Thilo, Codex apocr. Novi Test., 
Leipzig, 1832, i. 159 273 (cf. XLV LXXII), and Tischendorf, Evang. apocr. 
(2. ed., Leipzig, 1876), pp. i 50 (cf. xn xxn). In a work entitled An 
Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic, 
Oxford, 1896, pp. 13 19, B. P. Grenfell published a fifth- or sixth-century 
papyrus fragment (cc. 7, 2 10, i), of the Protevangelium. A fragment 
of a Syriac version (cc. 17 25), with an English translation, is found in 
Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, 
London, 1865. - - The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, with 
texts from the Septuagint, the Coran, the Peschitto and from a Syriac 
hymn in a Syro-Arabic palimpsest of the fifth and other centuries, edited 
and translated by A. Smith Lewis, Cambridge, 1902 (Studia Sinaitica, n. XI). 
E. Nestle, Ein syrisches Bruchstiick aus dem Protoevangelium Jacobi, in 
Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 86 87. In the Ame 
rican Journal of Theology (1897), i. 424 442, F. C. Conybeare made known 
an Armenian version, and translated it into English. For the Slavonic 
versions cf. N. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 
909 ff. ; for Coptic and Arabic versions Thilo, 1. c., Proleg. pp. LXVII ff. 
There are German versions by Borberg (after Thilo), Bibliothek der neu 
testamentl. Apokryphen (Stuttgart, 1841), i. 9 56, and by F. A. v. Lehner 
(after Tischendorf} , Die Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderten 
(2. ed., Stuttgart, 1886), pp. 223 236. L. Conrady , Das Protevangelium 
Jacobi in neuer Beleucntung, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1889), Ixii. 
728784. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 774 780. Id., 
Retractiones, iv, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1902), xiii. 19 22. Harnack, 
1. c., ii. i, 598603. 

In the so-called Decretal of Gelasius, De recipiendis et non re- 
cipiendis libris, we meet with the titles of Apocryphal Gospels : nomine 
Andreae, nomine Barnabae, nomine Bartholomaei. Probably under the 

1 Comm. in Matth., x. 17: ^ pi t 3koq laxatfioo. 

2 Dial. c. Tryph., cc. 78, 100; Apol., i. 33. 


name of Gospel of Andrew are meant the Acts of St. Andrew ( 30, 6) 
mentioned by Pope Innocent I. * and by St. Augustine 2 . No Gospel 
of Barnabas is mentioned in ancient ecclesiastical literature ; at a later 
period we meet with but one mention of it in the (Greek) Catalogue 
of the Sixty Canonical Books. A Gospel of Bartholomew is spoken 
of by St. Jerome 3 , but no more precise knowledge of it has reached us. 

The Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books has been lately edited 
anew by Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. i, 289 293. A frag 
ment of the Gospel of Bartholomew is said to exist in a codex of the 
Vatican Library: A. Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl., Rome, 1854, vii. 3, 117. 
W. E. A. Axon, On the Mahommedan Gospel of Barnabas, in Journal of 
Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 441 453. 

racles of the Lord and His crucifixion, Justin Martyr refers the 
Roman Emperors to the Acts of the trial under Pilate (TO. ITT} 
Uovrwu nddroo ys.vbfi.zva axra)*. It is probable that he had not in 
mind any published document current under that title, but took it 
for granted that the acts of the trial of Jesus w r ere to be found in 
the imperial archives at Rome. The extant Acta or Gesta Pilati, 
or Evangelium Nicodemi, relate the interrogatory before Pilate, the 
condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. They are of 
Christian origin, and are not older than the fourth century. Ter- 
tullian mentions 5 a report of Pilate to Tiberius on the death and 
resurrection of our Lord. The Letter of Pilate to Emperor Claudius, 
in the Acts of Peter and Paul ( 30, 4), might be a revision of 
of this report; it is, in any case, of Christian origin. 

R. A. Lipsius , Die Pilatusakten kritisch untersucht, Kiel, 1871. 
If. v. Schubert , Die Komposition des pseudo-petrinischen Evangelienfrag- 
ments, Berlin. 1893, pp. 175 ff. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, 
ii. i, 603 ff. The Anaphora Pilati etc., in Syriac and Arabic, Studia 
Sinaitica (1890), v. 15 66, with English translation, i 14. E. v. Dobschiitz, 
Der Prozeft Jesu nach den Acta Pilati, in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. 
Wissensch. (1902), iii. 89 114. G. F. Abbott, The Report and Death of 
Pilate, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iv. 83 88. T/i. Mommsen, 
Die Pilatusakten, in Zeitschr. f. neutest. Wissenschaft (1902), iii. 198 205. 
T. H. Bindley, Pontius Pilate in the Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies 
(1904), vi. 112113. 

30. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. 

Clement of Alexandria cites frequently 6 a Preaching of Peter (IHrpou 
x-qp j-flULa), and treats it as a trustworthy source of teaching of the 
prince of the Apostles. Similarly we learn from Origen 7 that the 

1 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7. 2 Contra adv. leg. et proph., i. 20, 39. 

3 Comm. in Matth., prol. 4 Apol., i. 35, 48 ; cf. c. 38. 

5 Apol., c. 21 ; cf. c. 5. Strom., i. 29, 182; ii. 15, 68, etc. 

7 Comm. in Joan., xiii. 17. 


Gnostic Heracleon (ca. 160 170) invoked the authority of this 
work. Origen himself doubts (1. c.) its authenticity, and Eusebius 
rejects it quite decidedly as an apocryphal writing 1 . Nevertheless, 
it found acceptance as late as the time of John of Damascus; for 
the Teaching of Peter (IliTpov didaaxati.a) that is quoted by him 2 , 
is very probably the same as the Preaching of Peter 3 . The lost 
original probably contained no continuous didactic exposition but a 
series of discourses pretending to be the work of Peter; both xypo-ftjia 
and dtdaaxaXia usually indicate teaching of a collective character. 
The meagre fragments that have reached us treat of the mission 
of the twelve Apostles by the Lord, of the true, i. e. the Christian 
adoration of God, and show no traces of heretical teaching. It was 
probably composed between 100 and 125 (cf. 15), perhaps by 
reason of a misunderstanding of II Pet. i. 15. - - The only mention 
of a Preaching of Paul (Pauli praedicatio) is in the pseudo-Cyprianic 
writing De rebaptismate (c. 17); very probably, however, it is the 
Acts ofPaul that are quoted (seep. 100). There seems to be no 
sufficient reason for the hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, according to which 
the Preaching of Peter and the Preaching of Paul were originally 
one work under the title IHrpo j xal IIai>Aoi> xypuffia. 

Extant fragments of these works are collected and put in order by 
A. Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test, extra can. rec. (2. ed., Leipzig, 1884), 
iv. 51 65; for the fragment of the x^ou-f^a IHrpoo cf. also Preuschen, 
Antilegomena, Gieften, 1901, pp. 52 54. The single fragments are discussed 
in much detail by E. von Dobsckntz , Das Kerygma Petri kritisch unter- 
sucht, Leipzig, 1893 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. i). Cf. Hilgenfeld, 
in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1893), ii. 518 541, and Zahn, Gesch. 
des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 820 832, 881 885. Apart from 
their title, the IKtpou xrrjpuffJiaTtt, that pretend to be the basis of the Cle 
mentines (cf. 26, 3), have nothing to do with the above-mentioned text. 
The Doctrine of Simon Cephas in the City ofRome, a Syriac text of which 
was published by W. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, London, 1864, 
pp. 35 41 , is not older than the latter half of the fourth century. Cf. 
Lipsius , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (1887), 
ii. i, 206 sq. -- A. Smith Lewis , The mythological Acts of the Apostles 
translated from an Arabic manuscript in the Convent of Deyr-es-Suriani, 
Egypt, and from mss. in the Convent of St. Catherine of Mount Sinai, and 
in the Vatican Library. With a translation of the palimpsest fragments of 
the Acts of Judas Thomas from Cod. Sin. Syr. (Horae Semiticae, iii. iv 
[London, 1904] xlvi, 265 ; viii, 228 pp.). y. G. Tasker, Mythological Acts 
of the Apostles, in Expository Times (1904), pp. no in. 

2. THE ACTS OF PETER. In their original form the Acts (itpdfeiQ) 
of Peter are an extended Gnostic narrative of the doings and suf 
ferings of the prince of the Apostles, composed shortly after the 
middle of the second century; the story has reached us in a respect- 

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 2 ; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. i. 
- Sacra Parallela: Migne, PG., xcv. 1157, 1461. 
3 Cf. Orig., De princ. praef. n. 8 : Petri doctrina. 


able number of fragments. The account of the martyrdom of the 
Apostle, which certainly formed the conclusion of the work, is extant 
in the original Greek (fjLapTUpwv TOO ay iou dizoGToXou Ilirpoo) and in 
a rhetorically enlarged Latin version (Martyrium Beati Petri a Lino 
episcopo conscriptum) . there can be no doubt that in this inscription 
it is Linus, the first successor of Peter, who is meant. A revised 
text is also found in Old -Slavonic, Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, and 
Ethiopic. Of the two Greek codices hitherto known, one has pre 
served, together with the account of the martyrdom, a small frag 
ment of the preceding narrative. A larger fragment is attached to 
the martyrdom in a rudely-executed Latin version known as Actus 
Petri cum Simone. This text, as just said, represents the most im 
portant of the extant fragments of the ancient Acts of Peter. In it 
are told the labours of St. Peter at Rome, his triumph over Simon 
Magus in the performance of miracles, the wretched end of the 
magician in consequence of his attempted flight to heaven, and 
at great length the glorious martyrdom of the Apostle who was 
crucified head downward. That it is a work of Gnostic origin and 
nature is plain from its Docetism, its prohibition of sexual inter 
course even among married persons, and its celebration of the 
Eucharist with bread and water. The first certain evidence of it is 
in Commodian 1 , though the actual title is first mentioned by Eusebius 2 
who says that it was an heretical work. According to Lipsius and 
Zahn it was written about 160 I/O, and by the author of the Acts 
of John (see p. 105), if similarity of ideas and diction are enough to 
prove the identity of authorship. Pope Innocent I. (401 417) de 
clared 3 that the afore-mentioned Leucius (cf. 28, 3) was the author 
of both the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John. 

The fragments of the Acts of Peter are found in Acta apostolorum 
apocrypha, edd. R. A. Lipsius et M. Bonnet, part I, Leipzig, 1891. In this 
work were first published from a Cod. Vercellensis (saec. vii) the Actus Petri 
cum Simone, pp. 45 103. Lipsius had already published, in Jahrbiicher 
fiir prot. Theol. (1886), xii. 86 ff. (cf. p. 175 ff.), the jj-ap-rupiov TOU dfi ou 
aTrocjToXou IIsTpou that is found, pp. 78102, in Lipsius and Bonnet; cf. 
ib., proleg., pp. xiv ff., for an account of some earlier unserviceable editions 
of the Martyrium Beati Petri apostoli a Lino episcopo conscriptum, pp. i 22. 
For the Old-Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions of the martyr 
dom, cf. Lipsius and Bonnet, proleg., pp. LIV. ff. We have already men 
tioned ( 25, 3) a Coptic Ilpacjis llsrpou of Gnostic origin. 

An Armenian version of the martyrdom of Peter was published by 
P. Vetter , Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten , i. Das gnostische 
Martyrium Petri, in Oriens christianus (1901), i. 217 239. The Acts of 
Peter are more fully treated by Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten 
und Apostellegenden (1887), ii. i, 85 284, and in the supplement (1890), 

1 Carm. apolog. 626, ed. Dombarl. 

" Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 2; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. i. 

3 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7. 

8J8, MAJ. 


pp. 34 47. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 832 855. 
J. Franko y Beitrage aus dem Kirchenslavischen zu den Apokryphen des 
Neuen Testaments, ii: Zu den gnostischen rrspioooi fU-rpou, in Zeitschr. fiir 
die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 3157-335. A. Baumstark , Die 
Petrus- und Paulusakten in der literarischen Uberlieferung der syrischen 
Kirche, Leipzig, 1902, and P. Peeters , in Analecta Bolland. (1902), xxi. 
121 140. A. Hilgenfeld, Die alten Actus Petri, in Zeitschr. fiir wissen- 
schaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi. 322 341. K. Schmidt, Die alten Petrusakten 
im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur, nebst einem neuent- 
deckten Fragment untersucht, in Texte und Untersuchungen , new series, 
ix. i. G. Picker, Die Petrusakten, Beitrage zu ihrem Verstandnis, Leipzig, 
1904. It is strange that Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i, 
449 f.) should reject the Gnostic origin and tendency of the Acts of Peter, 
and refer them to the middle of the third century. James , on the other 
hand, has lately defended the identity of the author of the Acts of 
Peter with the second century writer of the Acts of John. Cf. Apocrypha 
Anecdota, 2. series (Cambridge, 1897), pp. xxiv flf. ; also Harnack, Texte 
und Untersuchungen, new series (1900), v. 3, 100 106. 

3. THE ACTS OF PAUL. About the time (160 170) of the 
publication of the Gnostic Acts of Peter, Catholic Acts (npasstt;) of 
Paul were put in circulation. Eusebius 1 places them among the 
dvTde^ofjieva of the New Testament ; Origen 2 cites them twice in a 
friendly and approving way; Hippolytus 3 treats them, without specific 
mention of their title, as a well-known and accepted historical book. 
It is very probable that the Preaching of Paul mentioned in the De 
rebaptismate (see p. 98) is none other than these Acts of Paul. 
In the so-called Catalogus Claromontanus, an index of the biblical 
books made about 300, the length of these Acts is put down as 
3560 verses or lines. In the Stichometria attributed to Nicephorus, 
patriarch of Constantinople (806 815), they are set down as containing 
3600 lines. It is only lately that more light has been thrown on such 
high figures by the discovery that the Acts of Paul and Thecla (see p. 102) 
and the apocryphal Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians (3.1, 3) 
are in reality parts of the original Acts of Paul, although at a very 
early date these two sections took on an independent form. The proof 
of this was furnished in 1897 by Schmidt s discovery at Heidelberg, in 
a papyrus-roll, of fragments of a Coptic version of the Acts of Paul. 
Confirmation was soon forthcoming from the so-called Caena Cypriani, 
a biblical cento, probably of the fifth century, for the composition of 
which, as Harnack saw (1899), not on ly were the biblical writings used, 
but also the Acts of Paul in their complete form. Besides these two 
larger sections of the Acts of Paul, there has also been preserved 
the conclusion of this lengthy work, its martyrdom-narrative, both in 
the Greek original (fiaproptov TOO afiou dxoaToko j IlauXov) and in 

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 5; 25, 4. 

2 Comm. in Joan., xx. 12; De princ., i. 2, 3. 

3 Comm. in Dan., iii. 29, 4, ed. Bonwelsch. 


several translations: Latin, Slavonic, Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Ethiopic. 
Hitherto only fragments of the Latin translation, in its original form, 
have been recognized and published ; its complete text has reached 
us in a later recension. In the more recent manuscripts of this 
text it is ascribed to Pope Linus (see p. 99), while the earlier manu 
scripts present it as an anonymous work : Passio Sancti Pauli apostoli. 
According to this narrative Paul preached at Rome with great suc 
cess concerning the Eternal King, Jesus Christ, and thereby irritated 
Nero who issued edicts of persecution against the soldiers of the 
Great King. By the Emperor s order Paul was beheaded. That 
these Acts were of Catholic origin is proven by the evidence of those 
who first mention them : Hippolytus, Origen, and Eusebius. Moreover 
no traces of heresy, especially of Gnosticism, have been found in 
the extant fragments. 

For the Greek and the two Latin texts of the martyrdom of Paul, of. 
Lipsius, in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet, part L, 1891 ; Lipsius 
had already made known the Greek text (ib. 104 117) and the earlier 
Latin text (ib. 105 113) (passionis Pauli fragmentum), in Jahrbiicher fur 
prot. Theol. (1886), xii. 86 ff. (cf. 175 ff.) and 334 sq. (cf. 691 ff.). 

The later Latin text (Lipsius and Bonnet, 23 44) was already well- 
known; cf. Lipsius, proleg. , pp. xiv ff. , and ib., pp. LVI ff.. for the Sla 
vonic, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. The Acts of Paul are dis 
cussed in detail by Lipsius s Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostel- 
legenden, ii. i, 85 284, and in the Supplement, pp. 34 47. Zahn, Gesch. 
des neutestament. Kanons, ii. 2, 865 891. On the original form and the 
remnants of the Acts of Paul cf. C.Schmidt, in Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher 
(1897), vii. 117 124; Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xix, new 
series (1899), iv. 3b; P. Corssen, Die Urgestalt der Paulusakten, in Zeitschr. 
fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1903), iv. 22 47 ; C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 
aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrus-Handschrift , n. i, Ubersetzung, 
Untersuchungen und koptischer Text, Leipzig, 1904, LVI, 240, 80 pp. A 
photographic facsimile of the Coptic text was published by Schmidt (ib., 
1904). See Shahan, Cath. Univ. Bulletin (Washington, 1905), x. 484 488. 

4. THE ACTS OF PETER AND PAUL. The origin of these Acts is 
very obscure. Unlike the two preceding, they contain the later 
history of both the Apostles and tend to show a close homogeneity 
and a continuous concord between the two Apostles. Lipsius be 
lieves that they also were composed in the second century. There are, 
however, only very obscure traces of them before the fifth century, 
in Hippolytus 1 , Cyril of Jerusalem 2 , Asterius ofAmasea 3 , and Sulpicius 
Severus 4 . The work was surely of Catholic origin, and probably 
compiled with the purpose of withdrawing from the hands of the 
faithful the heretical Acts of Peter (see p. 98). All extant fragments 
show evidence of a later revision. The Greek texts, usually entitled 

1 Philos., vi. 20. 2 Catech. 6, c. 15. 

3 Horn. 8 in SS. Apost. Petr. et Paul., sub fine; cf. Migne, PG., xl. 297 ff. 

* Chron. ii. 28. 


rcbv ayicov diiocrTohoy IHrpoo YJU IlaoXoo, relate the journey 
of St. Paul to Rome and the martyrdom of both Apostles. One 
Greek codex (Marcianus , saec. xvi) relates only the martyrdom 
fft&pTijptov rwv afiajv dxoaroXcov IHrpoo xal ffafikooji and is silent as 
to the Roman journey; even in its account of the former it offers 
a text that differs much from the other Greek codices, while it 
presents a close affinity with an early Latin version, which also 
omits the journey to Rome and is likewise entitled Passio sancto 
rum apostolorum Petri et Pauli. There are extant also an Old- 
Slavonic and an Old -Italian version. It seems certain that the 
basis of the journey-narrative is found in the story of St. Paul s journey 
from the island of Cauda to Rome described in the canonical Acts 
of the Apostles (cc. xxvii xxviii). In its account of the martyrdom 
of the Apostles this work profited much by the similar narrative in 
the Acts of Peter. 

The Greek text of the martyrdom of both Apostles and of the journey to 
Rome was edited by J. C. Thilo, in two programmes of the University of Halle, 
1837 1838; by C. Tischendorf, in his Acta apostol. apocrypha, pp. i 39; 
by Lipsius, in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius and Bonnet, i. 178 222. 
In addition Lipsius reprinted (ib., pp. 118 176) the second recension of 
the Greek text, minus the journey-narrative (codex Marcianus saec. xvi), also 
the early Latin version of the martyrdom (pp. 119 177), and a later Latin 
compilation on the martyrdom of the two Apostles (pp. 223 234). For 
the early-Slavonic and Italian versions cf. ib., proleg. pp. LXXXIX ff., and 
Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. i, 284 
to 390. Supplement, pp. 47 61. P. Vetter, Die armenischen apokryphen 
Apostelakten, ii : Die Akten der Apostel Petrus und Paulus, in Oriens Christi- 
anus (1903), pp. 1655. 

5. THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. These Acts have come to us 
down in their Greek text, likewise in several Latin translations and in 
Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, and Arabic recensions. In the manu 
scripts the Greek text bears the title Kpd&iq DaoXoo xai Oextys, also 
fjLapTijpiov TTjQ frficLQ npoTOfidpTUpOQ OsxtyQ , or the like. Jerome 
calls it Ttepiodot Pauli et Theclae 1 . The object of the very simple 
and unpretending tale is the story of Thecla, a noble virgin of 
Iconium in Lycaonia. Fascinated by the preaching of St. Paul she 
resolves on abandoning her betrothed to serve God in the state of 
virginity. For this decision she suffers many torments and persecutions. 
After her miraculous liberation she devotes herself to the preaching of 
the Gospel, with the consent and by the commission of the Apostle. 
There is probably an historical nucleus to the narrative the conver 
sion and martyrdom of a Thecla of Iconium, the portrait of St. Paul 
(c. 3), the meeting of Thecla with Queen Tryphaena (cc. 27 ff, 39 ff). 
But the truth is overlaid with much that is fanciful ; in general these 
Acts are a highly romantic work of imagination. The historical frame- 

1 De viris illustr., c. 7. 


work of the narrative is furnished by the so-called first journey of 
St. Paul, described in the canonical Acts (cc. xiii xiv), and many of 
the characters that figure in it are drawn from the Second Epistle to 
Timothy. Since the third and fourth centuries, the Thecla-legend, 
originally vouched for by these Acts of Paul and Thecla, spread 
widely throughout the whole Church. Tertullian relates 1 that they 
were composed by a priest of Asia Minor who was possessed by 
a fanatical admiration for St. Paul. For this action the priest was 
deposed from his office. Jerome repeats (1. c.) the statement of Ter 
tullian, with the addition that the judgment of the priest took place 
in the presence of the Apostle John (apud Joannem), an assertion 
which is surely erroneous. It has been lately shown (see p. 100) that 
the Acts of Paul and Thecla are only a fragment of the Acts of 
Paul; hence they were composed about 160 170. It is quite cre 
dible that the Acts of Paul were written by a Catholic priest; he 
was punished, not so much because he put forth unecclesiastical 
doctrine, as because he gave currency to historical falsehoods. 

The Greek text of the Acts of Paul and Thecla is found in J. E. Grabe, 
Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et haereticorum, Oxford, 1698, i. 95 119 (and 
thence in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1765, i. 177 191); Tischen- 
dorf 3 Acta apost. apocr., pp. 40 63. Lipsius, Acta apost. apocr. , edd. 
Lipsius et Bonnet, i. 235 272. There are in print three ancient Latin 
versions of the Acts, one in the collection of Legends of the Saints, 
published at Milan in 1476 by B. Mombritius (without title or pagination), a 
second in Grabe 1. c., pp. 120 127 (Gallandi\. c.), the third in Bibliotheca 
Casinensis iii, (1877), Florileg. 271 276. O. v. Gebhardt, Passio S. Theclae 
virginis. Die lateinische Ubersetzung der Acta Pauli et Theclae, nebst 
Fragmenten, Ausziigen und Beilagen (Texte und Untersuchungen , new 
series, vii. 2), Leipzig, 1902. W. Wright published and translated the Syriac 
version of these Acts in his Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, London, 
1871, i. 127 169 (Syriac); ii. 116 145 (English). The Armenian version 
was translated into English by F. C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts 
of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity, London, 1894; 
2. ed. 1896. For a Slavonic and an Arabic translation of the Acts cf. 
Lipsius 1. c., proleg., p. en. C, Schlau , Die Akten des Paulus und der 
Thekla und die altere Thekla-Legende, Leipzig, 1877. Lipsius, Die apo- 
kryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. i, 424 467; Supplement, pp. 61 sq. 104. 
A. Rey , tude sur les Acta Pauli et Theclae et la le gende de The cla, 
Paris, 1890. Zahn , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 892 910. 
Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 136 138 (Preuschen)\ ii. i, 
493 505. W. M. Ramsay , The Church in the Roman Empire before 
A. D. 170, 2. ed., London, 1893, pp. 375 428. Id., A Lost Chapter of 
Early Christian History (Acta Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, 1902, 
pp. 278 295. Cf. J. Gwynn, Thecla, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr. (London, 
1887), iv. 882896. 

6. THE ACTS OF ANDREW. Eusebius 2 is the first to mention Acts 
(irpdetgj of the Apostle Andrew, observing that they were used only 
by heretics, Gnostics perhaps, or Manichseans according to other 

1 De bapt., c. 17. ~ Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6. 


writers *. The work was held in high esteem by the Priscillianists 2 . Pope 
Innocent I. says 3 that its authors were the philosophers Nexocharides 
(Xenocharides?) and Leonidas. Possibly he may have found this state 
ment in the Acts themselves, though some have seen in these names 
a distortion of the name of Leucius Charinus ( 28, 3). The Acts are 
certainly of Gnostic origin and were probably written in the latter half 
of the second century, according to Lipsius by the author of the Gnostic 
Acts of Peter (see p. 98) and the Gnostic Acts of John (see p. 105). 
Some fragments of the original Acts of Andrew have been preserved 
in citations and narratives of ecclesiastical writers, e. g. the story of a 
certain Maximilla related by Evodius of Uzalum*, and the prayer of 
Andrew upon the Cross related by the pseudo- Augustine 5 . Lengthy 
fragments of this work, which was apparently an extensive one, have 
reached us in recensions executed by Catholic hands. Among the 
printed fragments is a Greek text entitled Tcpd&u; Avdpiou xal 
Mar&sia slg ryv nbfav TOJV dvfypcoTtocpdftov. It is also found in several 
translations: Syriac, Coptic (Sahidic), Ethiopic, and Anglo-Saxon. 
Andrew frees miraculously his fellow- Apostle Matthias who was held in 
prison by the Anthropophagi. After suffering grievous torments he 
preaches the Gospel successfully to his captors. Here the narration 
breaks off quite abruptly, only to be resumed and carried on in a 
second Greek fragment entitled xpdqztQ rwv a^iaj^ aTtoaToAcoy IHrpou 
xai Avdpia, preserved also in Slavonic and Ethiopic. Its subject is 
the happy issue soon vouchsafed to the mission of the two Apostles 
(at once companions and brothers) in the city of the Barbarians (iv 
T7j iroAet TOJV flapftdpcuv). Both Anthropophagi and Barbarians 
are to be looked for about the shores of the Black Sea. The 
ancient Acts make Andrew go into Pontus from Greece (Philastr. 
1. c.) and narrate his death on the cross at Patrae in Achaia. His 
death is the theme of the [jtapropiov TOO afiov dito0T6Aov Avdplou, 
which we possess both in a Greek and a Latin text. It pretends to 
be the work of his personal disciples and eye-witnesses of the facts, 
i. e. of priests and deacons of the churches of Achaia , but is 
probably not older than the fifth century. Lipsius is of opinion 
that the Greek text is the original and the Latin a translation, 
but Bonnet is doubtless right in maintaining that the Latin is the 
original, and he distinguishes two Greek versions. 

The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Anthropophagi 
were edited in Greek by Thilo, in a program of the University of Halle 
in 1846, and by Tischendorf, in Acta apost. apocr., pp. 132 166; cf. the 
Appendix in Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocr., pp. 139 141. For the various 

1 Epiph., Haer., 47, I ; 61, i; 63, 2. Philastr., De haeres., c. 88. 

2 Turib., Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon., c. 5. 3 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7. 

4 De fide contra Manichaeos, c. 38. 

5 De vera et falsa poenitentia, c. 8, 22. 


versions cf. Lipsius , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten , i. 546 ff., and 
Supplement, pp. 259 ff. The Acts of the holy Apostles Peter and Andrew 
were published in Greek by Tischendorf , Apocal. apocr. , pp. 161 167. 
For the versions cf. Lipsius, \. c., i. 553. The Martyrdom of the holy 
Apostle Andrew was published in Greek by C. Chr. Woog, Leipzig, 1749 
(Gallandi , Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1765, pp. 152 165), and by Tischen 
dorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 105 131. An Italian version from the Greek 
was brought out by M. Mallio, Venice, 1797, and Milan, 1882. The Latin 
text of these Acts was already printed by Mombritius (see p. 103), in his 
Leggendario, and has since been often reprinted (cf. Gallandi, 1. c.). All 
the aforenamed Greek and Latin texts, with some new pieces, including 
a long Greek fragment Ex actis Andreae (38 45) were edited by 
Bonnet, in the Acta apost. apocr. of Lipsius and Bonnet (1898), ii. i, i 
to 127. In Lipsius, 1. c., i, 545 ff . , there is a discussion of more recent 
recensions of the legend of Andrew. Three works quoted by Lipsius 
from the manuscripts have since been published by Bonnet, in Analecta 
Bollandiana (1894), xiii. 309 378, and separately in Supplementum codicis 
apocryphi, Paris, 1895, ii; Acta Andreae cum laudatione contexta (Greek); 
Martyrium Andreae (Greek); Passio Andreae (Latin). For the Slavonic 
version of the Acts of Andrew cf. M. N. Speranskij , The Apocryphal 
Acts of the Apostle Andrew in the Old-Slavonic texts (Russian), Moscow, 
1894. On the Acts of Andrew in general cf. Lipsius, 1. c., i. 543 622, 
and Supplement, pp. 28 31. 

7. THE ACTS OF JOHN. With the Acts of Andrew Eusebius 
couples 1 certain Acts (npdqsiq) of the Apostle John, he also places 
them among the heretical works forbidden by the Church. Other 
writers say that both the Acts of John and the Acts of Andrew 
were in use among the Gnostices, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists 2 . 
Very probably the writer is identical with the author of the Acts 
of Peter (see p. 98), perhaps of those of Andrew (see p. 103). 
They are surely of Gnostic origin, and are as old as the second 
century; for Clement of Alexandria cites them 3 . Their original 
text has been lost, but the substance of their contents has reached 
us through later Catholic recensions of the Johannine Legend. 
The principal subject of these Acts seems to have been the journey 
of John into Asia (Minor) and the miracles performed by him at 
Ephesus. They pass lightly over his (three years ) exile in Patmos, 
are very diffuse as to the Apostle s second sojourn at Ephesus, and close 
with the story of the peaceful death of their hero. We really have little 
information about the Gnostic Acts of John. In the Acts of the Second 
Council of Nicaea (787) are preserved three genuine fragments of 
their original text. One of them refers to a portrait of St. John, 
and was quoted by the iconoclastic synod of Constantinople (754) 
against the veneration of images. The other two were quoted at the 
above mentioned Council of Nicaea as proof of the heretical origin 

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6. 

2 Epiph., Haer. 47, I. Philastr., De haeres., c. 88. Aug., Contra adv. legis et 
prophet., i. 20, 39. Turib., Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon., c. 5. 

3 Adumbr. in I lo. i. I. 


and character of the Acts of John, the source of the pretended apo 
stolic testimony. These latter excerpts are met with in a still longer 
fragment, first published by James under the title: Wonderful Nar 
ration (diy-pjfftQ $ai>naaTYj) of the deeds and visions which the holy 
John the Theologian saw through our Lord Jesus Christ . It sets 
forth with insistency, and in a tasteless way, the doctrine of a merely 
docetic body in Jesus Christ. Other lengthy fragments may be attribut 
ed, with more or less probability, to the Gnostic Acts of St. Andrew, 
especially a narration of the death (^rdoraotc,) of the Apostle. It is 
extant in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and other languages. 

Collections of the fragments of the Gnostic Acts of John were made 
by ThilOy in a programme of the University of Halle 1847. Cf. Zahn, Acta 
Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, pp. 219 252 (LX CLXXII) ; Bonnet, in Acta apost. 
apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet (1898), ii. i, 151 216. The fragment men 
tioned is edited by James in his Apocrypha Anecdota, 2. series, pp. i 25 \ 
cf. ix xxviii. The greater part of the Acta Joannis in Zahn is taken up 
with a new edition of the Greek narrative of the deeds of the Apostle 
John, current under the name of Prochorus (cf. the canonical Acts, vi. 5), 
composed probably in the first half of the fifth century. For two Latin 
recensions of the Johannine legend that are much closer a kin to the 
Gnostic Acts than the Greek text is, see Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostel- 
geschichten , i. 408 431. In his Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier 
Evangelien, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 73 91 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xv. i), 
P. Corssen has constructed out of the writings of Jerome, Augustine, and 
others an Historia ecclesiastica de Johanne apostolo et evangelista, which he 
claims was current in the third century. It probably never existed, at least 
in the proposed shape. On the Acts of John in general cf. Zahn 1. c., 
Einleitung, pp. m CLXXII; Lipsius 1. c., i. 348 542, and Supplement, 
pp. 25 28, also Zahn, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1899), x. 191 218. 

8. THE ACTS OF THOMAS. The Acts (xpd&iq) of the Apostle Thomas 
have been handed down in a better text and a more complete condition 
than any of the other Gnostic legendary histories of the Apostles. It is 
true that the original text is lost, but two of the Catholic recensions, 
in Greek and Syriac, date from a very early period, and present a 
relatively clear vision of the Gnostic framework common to all. The 
Syriac text was published by Wright in 1871, the Greek by Bonnet 
in 1883. The principal difference between them consists in the larger 
number of Gnostic features that have faded from the Syriac, but 
have been preserved in the Greek. The theme of the Acts is 
the missionary preaching of St. Thomas in India. The Greek text 
is divided into twelve Acts (npdSstQ) that are followed by the 
martyrdom, while the Syriac has but eight Acts and the martyr 
dom ; the contents are substantially identical, however, as Acts 7 8 
in the Syriac correspond to Acts 8 12 in the Greek text. They are 
filled with many kinds of odd and vulgar miracles, and aim mostly 
at dissuading their readers from all sexual intercourse. Von Gut- 
schmid has shown that the narrative contains both legendary and 


historical traits. The Indian king Gundaphorus, for whom, in the 
second Act, Thomas builds a palace in heaven, is the Indo-Parthian 
king Gondophares, of the first century of the Christian era, otherwise 
known only by coins and inscriptions. The hypothesis of von Gut- 
schmid that the entire Thomas-Legend is only a story of Buddhistic 
missionary preaching, worked over in a Christian sense, still remains 
a pure conjecture. Some poetical pieces scattered through the nar 
rative deserve attention, notably an Ode to Sophia, said to have been 
sung by Thomas in Hebrew (i. e. Aramaic) at Andrapolis on the 
occasion of the wedding of the king s daugther (Bonnet, 8 ff.); also 
two solemn prayers said to have been uttered by Thomas when 
baptizing and w r hen celebrating the Holy Eucharist (Bonnet, 20 36); 
finally a beautiful, but often very enigmatic and rather irrelevant, hymn 
on the fate of the soul. The latter is found only in the Syriac text 
(Wright , 274 ff.). All these poetical compositions are decidedly 
Gnostic in character, and were doubtlessly written in Syriac, perhaps 
by Bardesanes. It seems, therefore, certain that the Acts were not 
originally composed in Greek but in Syriac, and in the first half of 
the third century at Edessa, by some disciple of Bardesanes. We 
know already (see p. 87) from Ephraem Syrus (cf. 28, 3) that the 
followers of Bardesanes were wont to circulate apocryphal Acts of the 
Apostles. The Thomas-Legend, therefore, found its readers in those 
circles which loved to read the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John, 
i. e. among Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists 1 . 

The Syriac text of the Acts was published with an English translation 
by Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, i. 171 333; ii. 146 298. 
The Greek text was edited by Bonnet , Supplementum codicis apocryphi, 
i. i 95. Some fragments of the Greek text were first edited by Thilo, 
Acta S. Thomae apostoli, Leipzig, 1823. A larger number appeared in 
Tischendorf , Acta apost. apocr., pp. 190 242, and in Apocalypses apocr., 
pp. 156 161. In Rhein. Museum fur Philologie, new series (1864), xix. 
161 183 (Kleine Schriften von A. v. Gutschmid, Leipzig, 1890, ii. 332 364) 
A. von Gutschmid discussed the facts of Indian history that are referred to in 
the Thomas-Legend. On King Gondophares in particular, cf. A. von Sallet, 
Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grofien in Baktrien und Indien , Berlin, 
1879, PP- T 57 Z 66. On the metrical pieces in the Acts cf. K. Macke, in 
Theol. Quartalschr. (1874), Ivi. i 70. A separate edition of the Hymn 
on the Soul was prepared by A. A. Bevan, Cambridge, 1897, and printed in 
Texts and Studies, v. 3. M. Bonnet, Le poeme de 1 ame, version grecque 
remaniee par Nicetas de Thessalonique , in Analecta Bollandiana (1901), 
xx. 159 164. For the Acts in general cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostel- 
geschichten, i. 225 347, and Supplement, pp. 23 25, also Harnack, 
Gesch. der altchristl. Literattir, ii. i, 545 549. Later recensions of the 
Legend are treated by Lipsius 1. c., i. 240 ff. Bonnet (1. c.) re-edited two 
later Latin forms of the Legend: De miraculis B. Thomae apostoli (pp. 96 
to 132), very probably by Gregory of Tours, and Passio S. Thomae apostoli 

1 Epiph., Haer., 47, I ; 61, I ; Aug., Contra Faustum, xxii. 79, w\& passim. Turib., 
Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon, c. 5. 


(pp. 133 1 60). For a later Greek recension cf. James, Apocrypha anec- 
dota, 2. series, pp. 27 45, and pp. xxxn XLIV. Bonnet brought out the 
definitive edition : Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae, accedunt Acta Barnabae, 
etc., ed. M. Bonnet, Leipzig, 1903 (Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et 
Bonnet, ii. 2). A. Mandni, Per la critica degli Acta apocrypha Thomae, 
in Atti della R. Accad. di scienze di Torino (1904), xxxix. 11 13. 

9. THE ACTS OF PHILIP. The Acts of Philip are very seldom men 
tioned in antiquity. We meet them for the first time in the so-called 
Gelesian Decretal De recipiendis et non recipiendis libris under the title 
Actus nomine Philippi apostoli apocryphi. Of the original fifteen Acts 
of the Greek text faepiodot fttXiitnoo TOV dTtoaroXou) we possess only 
fragments, the first nine and the fifteenth Act. The latter contains the 
martyrdom of the Apostle. The description they offer of the missionary 
travels of the Apostle is very obscure and confused. In the second 
Act, Philip reaches the city of the Athenians called Hellas ; in the 
third Act he goes from Athens to Parthia, thence into the land of the 
Candacii and to Azotus. In the fifth, sixth, and seventh Acts we find 
him again in Hellas at Nicatera. In the eighth Act he goes to the 
land of the serpent-worshippers fsiQ ryv /wpav TWV Vy>tava)vj, i. e. to 
Hierapolis in Phrygia, where, in the fifteenth Act, he meets with 
death. There is in these Acts a confusion of the Apostle Philip with 
Philip the Deacon. The imaginary journey to the land of the Can- 
dacii, and the action of the Apostle at Azotus, are based on an ignorant 
misinterpretation of the canonical Acts (viii. 27, Queen Candace) and 
the sojourn of the Apostle Philip at Azotus (Acts viii. 40). A Syriac 
legend concerning the doings of the Apostle Philip distorts still more 
gravely the truth of these chapters, when it makes the Apostle preach 
in the City of Carthage that is in Azotus . In the opinion of Lipsius 
we have in the Greek text of these Acts a Catholic revision of a lost 
Gnostic original composed during the third century. Zahn holds them 
to be original compositions, made, at the earliest, about the end of 
the fourth century. 

The Greek text of the second and the fifteenth Acts of Philip are in 
Tischendorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 75 104. The first Act and the Acts 3 9 
were edited by P. Batiffol, in Analecta Bollandiana (1890), ix. 204 249. 
In his Apocalypses apocr., pp. 141 156, Tischendorf published two later 
Greek recensions of the fifteenth Act (the martyrdom). Cf. James , Apo 
crypha anecdota, pp. 158163. For the Syriac text of the Acts of Philip 
cf. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, i. 73 99; ii. 69 92. In 
general cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. 2, i 53; and 
Supplement, pp. 64 73 94 260. H. O. Stolten and Lipsius, in Jahrbiicher 
fiir prot. Theol. (1891), xvii. 149 160 459 473. Zahn, Forschungen 
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1900), vi. 18 24. 

10. THE ACTS OF MATTHEW. Of these Acts only the conclusion 
or martyrdom-narrative has reached us. At Myrne, the city of the 
Anthropophagi, Matthew closed his glorious career in the service of 


the Gospel by a martyrdom of fire, at the order of King Fulbanus. 
During the martyrdom, and after the death of the Apostle, astounding 
miracles took place that shook the obstinacy even of the king, who 
was converted and became a bishop. Apparently, the narrative is 
only a fragment; Lipsius deems it the remnant of an old Gnostic 
tale concerning Matthew, revised in the third century by Catholics. 
However, both the date and the Gnostic origin of the legend are still 
doubtful. No ecclesiastical writer of antiquity mentions these Acts. 

For the Greek text of the Martyrium of Matthew cf. Tischcndorf, Acta 
apost. apocr., pp. 167 189. Bonnet has added an ancient Latin recension, 
in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet (1898), ii. i, 217262. In 
general cf. Lipsms , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten , ii. 2, 109 141, 
and Supplement, p. 76. 

1 1 . THE LEGEND OF THADD^US. The famous Thaddaeus-Legend 
is deserving of mention, though its hero, Thaddaeus or Addaeus, was 
originally held to be one of the 70 or 72 disciples (Luke x. i) and 
only at a later date was confounded with the Apostle (Judas) Thad 
daeus. The earliest form of the Legend appears in Eusebius l , who 
avers that he found it in the archives of Edessa 2 . Some of the do 
cuments in these archives he copied word for word, and translated 
from Syriac into Greek 3 . They were the correspondence between 
Abgar, toparch of Edessa, and Jesus, together with an account of 
the mission of Thaddaeus to Edessa. In his Letter to Jesus, Abgar 
(Abgar V. Ukkama, or the Black ca. 13 50) begs the Lord to 
visit him in Edessa and cure his illness. But the Lord refuses, since 
He must accomplish His work in Palestine and ascend thence to 
Heaven. After that event, however, He will send one of His disciples 
who will free Abgar from his illness. 

The narrative goes on to relate that, after the Ascension of the 
Lord, Judas who was also called Thomas, sent Thaddaeus, one of 
the seventy, to Edessa. Thaddaeus cured the king and many other 
sick persons, and began to preach the Gospel to the people of 
Edessa. In 1876 a lengthy Syriac narrative was given to the public in 
which there was question of the conversion of Edessa to the Christian 
faith. It claims to have been composed by a certain Labubna and 
is entitled Doctrine of the Apostle Addaeus. Almost contempor 
aneously an Armenian version of the Syriac original was published. In 
this work the documents cited by Eusebius re-appear in almost verbal 
agreement, the only difference being some minor additions. According 
to the newly discovered work the answer of the Lord to Abgar was not 
given in writing, but orally. Moreover, before mentioning the mission 
to Edessa of Addaeus, one of the Seventy- Two, this work interpolates 
a short account of the portrait of Christ said to have been painted 

1 Hist eccl., i. 13. 2 Ib., i. 13, 5; cf. ii. i, 6. 8. 

3 Ib., i. 13, 5 22. 


by Ananias, the messenger of Abgar. Finally, there is added a 
lengthy narrative of the missionary preaching of Addaeus in Edessa. 
The short Greek Acts of Thaddaeus, certainly not written before 
the fifth century, insert Thaddseus or Lebbaeus (one of the Twelve), 
instead of Thaddseus or Addaeus (one of the Seventy or Seventy- 
Two). It is not true, as Zahn (1881) contended, that the Doctrina 
Addaei represents the complete text of the Acta Edessena quoted 
by Eusebius. It is rather a later enlargement and improvement of 
that legend. According to Tixeront (1888), in its present form it 
cannot be earlier than 390 430. At the same time, it is not pos 
sible to fix more exactly the date of the Acta Edessena. Lipsius 
believes that the legend of the correspondence between Abgar and 
Jesus arose about the time of the first known Christian king of Edessa, 
Abgar VIII. (Bar Manu), ca. 176 213. There is no doubt of the 
non-authenticity of the correspondence. A sufficient refutation of its 
claims is the statement of St. Augustine that genuine Letters of 
Christ would have surely been most highly esteemed from the be 
ginning in the Church of Christ l . It was the contrary that happened, 
for this very correspondence was declared apocryphal in the so-called 
Gelasian Decretal De recip. et non recip. libris 2 . 

W. Cureton published extensive fragments of the Syriac Doctrina Addaei, 
in Ancient Syriac Documents, London, 1864, pp. 5 (6) 23. Later G. Phil 
lips edited the complete text : The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, London, 
1876. Editions of the Armenian version appeared, 1868, at Venice and at 
Jerusalem. For the Armenian version cf. A. Carriere, La legende d Abgar 
dans Fhistoire d Armenia de Mo ise de Khoren, Paris, 1895. For the Greek 
ActaThaddaei cf. Tischendorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 261 265, and Lipsius, 
Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius and Bonnet, i, 273 278; Acta Thaddaei, in 
Giornale Arcadico iv. (1901), vol. vii, 55 63. R. A. Lipsius, Die edesse- 
nische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht, Braunschweig, 1880. Id., Die apo- 
kryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. 2, 178 200; Supplement, pp. 105 108. 
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Erlangen, 
1881, i. 350 382. W. A. Wright, Abgar, in Diet, of Christian Biogr., 
London, 1877, i. 5 7. K. C. A. Matthes, Die edessenische Abgarsage auf 
ihre Fortbildung untersucht (Dissert, inaug ), Leipzig, 1882. L.J. Tixeront, 
Les origines de 1 eglise d fidesse et la legende d Abgar, Paris, 1888. 
A. Buffa, La legende d Abgar et les origines de 1 eglise d Edesse (These), 
Geneva, 1893. J. Nirschl, Der Briefvvechsel des Konigs Abgar von Edessa 
mit Jesus in Jerusalem oder die Abgarfrage , in Katholik (1896), ii. 17 if. 
97 ff. 193 ff. 322 ff. 398 ff. E. v. Dobschntz, Christusbilder, Leipzig, 1899 
(Texte und Untersuchungen, xviii, new series, iii), pp. 102 ff. 158 ff. 29 ff. 
Id., in Zeitschr. ftir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1900), xliii. 422 486. 

31. Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles. 

I. THE LETTER TO THE LAODICEANS. The reference of St. Paul 
(Col. iv. 1 6) to an epistle written by him to the Laodiceans has 

1 Contra Faust. Man. xviii, 4; cf. De cons, evang., i. 7, ii ff. 

2 Epistola Jesu ad Abgarum regem apocrypha, Epistola Abgari ad Jesum apocrypha. 


been variously interpreted in the past. It furnished the occasion for 
the forgery of a so-called Epistle of St. Paul, Ad Laodicenses, which 
from the sixth to the fifteenth century found welcome in many Latin 
biblical manuscripts. The Latin text exhibits a very inelegant and 
obscure diction and seems to be a translation from the Greek, although 
all the other texts of the Epistle discovered up to the present are 
derived from the Latin. This curious little Letter is entirely com 
posed of words and phrases excerpted from the genuine Epistles of 
St. Paul, and impresses the reader as a very childish and harmless 
composition, without the slightest trace of heretical doctrine. The 
first certain mention of it is in a quotation from a work falsely 
attributed to St. Augustine, composed, however, very probably, in 
the fifth century J . Possibly it is the same as the Epistola ad Laodi 
censes mentioned by St. Jerome 2 , in which case our Epistle would 
date from the fourth century at least. An Epistola ad Laudicenses, 
mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment as a forgery in the interest of 
Marcion, was probably the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians revised by 
Marcion for the purpose of his teaching, and entitled Ad Laodicenos 3 . 

Cf. R. Anger , Uber den Laodicenerbrief (Beitrage zur hist.-krit. Ein- 
leitung in das Alte und Neue Testament, i), Leipzig, 1843. J. B. Light- 
foot, St. Paul s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 2. ed., London, 
1876, pp. 281 300. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), 
ii. 2, 566 585. Anger, Lightfoot and Zahn exhibit also new recensions of 
the text. Anger makes known (pp. 166 if.) two Old-German and two Old- 
English versions, also one Old-Bohemian version, and a re-translation from 
the Latin into the Greek. Lightfoot gives two Old-English translations into 
Greek. Carra de Vaux published an Arabic translation, in the Revue 
Biblique (1896), v. 221 226. 

2. THE LETTER TO THE ALEXANDRINES. In the Muratorian Fragment 
the title of the last mentioned document is followed by that of a pseudo- 
Pauline and Marcionite Epistle Ad Alexandrines. We have no other 
knowledge of this Letter which some have erroneously supposed to be the 
canonical Epistle to the Hebrews. A lesson of the seventh-century Sacra- 
mentarium et Lectionarium Bobbiense, entitled Epistola Pauli apostoli 
ad Colos., would be, in the opinion of Zahn, a fragment of the Epistola 
ad Alexandrines. But his hypothesis is over-bold, and very questionable. 

Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 586 592. Harnack, 
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 33. 

In the Syriac biblical manuscripts of the fourth century the two canonical 
Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians were followed by a third. A letter 
of the presbyters of Corinth to Paul served as an introduction to this 
latter Epistle. In his commentary on the Pauline Epistles Ephraem 

1 Liber de divinis scripturis (ed. Weihrich, p. 516). 

- De viris illustr., c. 5. 3 Tert., Adv. Marc., v. ii, 17. 


Syrus treats this third Epistle, with its introductory note, as quite equal 
in authority to the genuine ones. In the fifth century it was translated 
from Syriac into Armenian and into Latin, and for centuries held its 
place in the biblical manuscripts of the Armenian Church. One Armenian 
and two Latin versions are extant; the Syriac text has not yet been 
discovered. Zahn and Vetter conjectured that the Syrian text must 
have been a translation or a recension of a Greek text that was itself 
only a part of the apocryphal Acta Pauli ; their conjecture was destined 
to be borne out by the discovery mentioned in 30, 3. The contents 
of the correspondence are as follows : Stephen and his co-presbyters 
at Corinth make known to Paul that two men, Simon and Cleobius, 
had been preaching at Corinth false doctrines; they denied the divine 
creation of the world and of man, the divine mission of the prophets, 
the virginal birth of Jesus, and the resurrection of the body. Their 
deceitful and perilous discourses had shaken severely the faith of 
some Christians. In the Armenian text (but not in the Latin) there 
is here inserted a document by which it appears that Paul was a 
prisoner at Philippi when he received the letter of the Corinthians, 
and that he was greatly troubled thereby. In his reply he insists 
again and urgently on the doctrine which he had always preached to 
the Corinthians, more particularly on that of the resurrection of the 
body. The idea of such a correspondence seems to have been 
suggested by I Cor. vii. I and v. 9. 

On the subject of this correspondence there are two exhaustive mono 
graphs: W. Fr. Rinck, Das Sendschreiben der Korinther an den Apostel 
Paulus und das dritte Sendschreiben Pauli an die Korinther, Heidelberg, 
1823, and P. Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, Vienna, 1894. 
Rinck made a German translation of the Letters from eight Armenian 
manuscripts, and pursued at great length the history of their diffusion and 
of their use, in the strange hope of proving them to be genuine. Vetter 
gives a literary-historical introduction to the problem and presents a new 
edition of all hitherto known texts ; he also makes some additions to them. 
The Armenian text (with a German version, in Vetter) pp. 39 57) was first 
published in 1715 by D. Wilkins. Of the two Latin translations one 
(Vetter, pp. 58 64) was edited by S. Berger (1891), and the other Better, 
pp. 64 69) by E. Bratke (1892). Vetter gives (pp. 70 79) a German 
version of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus (in Old- Armenian) on these 
Epistles; the original Syriac has been lost. Cf. Zahn, Gesch. des neutesta- 
mentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 592 611, 1016 1019; Vetter, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1895), Ixxvii. 622 633; A. Berendts, in Abhandlungen Al. von Ottingen 
gewidmet, Miinchen, 1898, pp. i 28. 

is extant in Latin a Correspondence between Paul and Seneca, made 
up of eight short Letters of the Roman philosopher L. Annaeus Seneca 
(f 65) and six, mostly still shorter, replies of the Apostle. They 
are remarkable for poverty of thought and content, rude diction and 
unpolished style. Seneca admires (Ep. i. 7) the Epistles of Paul, but 


is offended at the antithesis between their noble contents and the 
wretched style (Ep. 7) ; he advises him to pay more attention to 
expression and to acquire a better Latin diction (Ep. 13; cf. Ep. 9). 
This correspondence is first mentioned by Jerome 1 and probably 
was not extant before the fourth century. There is no foundation 
for the hypothesis that the correspondence mentioned by Jerome has 
disappeared, while the extant Letters are mediaeval fiction ; the Latin 
text is original, not a translation. It is possible that the author 
desired to popularize among the higher classes of Roman nobility a 
broader view of the Epistles of St. Paul. The legend of Seneca s 
conversion to Christianity, on which this correspondence is based, 
owes its origin to the ethico-theistic character of the Stoic philosopher s 

This correspondence is found in many editions of the works of Seneca, 
notably in the stereotyped edition of his prose-writings by Fr. Haase, 
Leipzig, 1852 1853; 1893 1895, iii. 476 481 ; L. A. Senecae opera quae 
supersunt. Supplementum, ed. Fr. Haase, Leipzig, 1902. Separate editions 
of the correspondence were brought out by Fr. X. Kraus , in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1867), xlix. 603624, and E. Westerburg, Der Ursprung der 
Sage, daft Seneca Christ gewesen sei, Berlin, 1881, pp. 37 50. For a 
criticism and commentary on the Letters cf. J. Kreyher, L. Annaus Seneca, 
Berlin, 1887, pp. 170 184; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 
612 621. On the relations of Seneca to Christianity cf. IV. Ribbeck, L. Annaus 
Seneca, der Philosoph, Hannover, 1887; Light foot, Epistle to the Philippians, 
London, 1890: St. Paul and Seneca, pp. 271 333; J. R. Mozley, in Diet, 
of Chr. Biogr., London, 1887, Seneca, p. 610. M. Baumgarten , Lucius 
Annaus Seneca, Rostock, 1895 ; L. Friedlander, Der Philosoph Seneca, in 
Histor. Zeitschr. (1900), Ixxxv. 193 249. 

32. Apocryphal Apocalypses. 

i. THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER. The eighth century-manuscript 
to which we owe the fragment of the Gospel of Peter ( 29, 5) has 
preserved also a long fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter. It 
begins in the middle of a speech of the Lord and relates at length 
a number of visions. Two departed brothers, clothed in celestial 
glory, appear upon a mountain to the Twelve Apostles. The narrator, 
one of the Apostles, who speaks of himself in the first person, is 
permitted to behold a glimpse of heaven, a very great space 
outside this world . Directly opposite heaven, but hidden from 
the gaze of the narrator, is the place of punishment for sinners; 
the description of the tortures endured there, depicted in glowing 
colours, takes up the remainder of the narrative. Although the narrator 
does not name himself, it is clear from intrinsic evidence that he wishes 
to be recognized as the prince of the Apostles. The identification of 
the work is made through a quotation from it in Clement of Alexandria. 
He introduces part of a passage (verse 26) with the words: nirpoQ 

1 De viris illustr., c. 12. 


iv rr t d7iOxaA6</>i (pycri 1 . In many places during the earlier centuries, 
even in ecclesiastical circles, this work enjoyed great popularity. 
Not only is it often quoted by Clement of Alexandria, but in his 
Hypotyposes he judged it worthy of a commentary 2 . In the Muratorian 
Fragment (according to the traditional and well-founded exposition 
of the text) this Apocalypse is held to be canonical, although it is 
admitted that some Christians do not share that opinion (quam quidam ex 
nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt). Though Eusebius 3 and Jerome 4 rejected 
it as non-canonical, it continued to be read on Good Friday in some 
of the churches of Palestine as late as the middle of the fifth 
century 5 . It was probably composed in the first half of the second 
century; the place of its origin cannot be determined. It has some 
points of contact with the Second Epistle of Peter ; hence it is sup 
posed that pseudo-Peter had it before him, and that he drew from 
it the impulse to pose in the person of the prince of the Apostles. 
Antique-heathen ideas of Hades are traceable in its descriptions of 
the pains of hell, particularly Orphic -Pythagorean traditions. But 
their presence in the author s mind is probably explained by the use 
of Judaistic literary sources, and not of heathen works. 

This fragment was published in 1892. The most important editions, 
translations, and recensions of it are quoted in 29, 5. Cf. besides 
A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Beitrage zur Erklarung der neuentdeckten Petrus- 
apokalypse, Leipzig, 1893; Harnack , in Texte und Untersuchungen, etc. 
(1895), xiii. i, 71 73. As far as we can now judge, there is no relation 
between this ancient Greek apocalypse and the Apocalypsis Petri per 
Clementem (containing explanations alleged to have been given by St. Peter 
to St. Clement of Rome about revelations alleged to have been made by 
Christ to Peter himself), preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic manuscripts, a 
miscellaneous collection scarcely older than the eighth century ; cf. E. Bratke, 
in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1893), i. 454 493. There is an 
English translation of the latter by Andrew Rutherford, in Ante-Nicene 
Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ix. 145 147. 

2. THE APOCALYPSE OF PAUL. In contents the Apocalypse of Paul 
is close a kin to the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand, it has 
reached us complete, not only in the original Greek, but in a series of 
translations and recensions. There exists, however, no reliable edition 
of this work, and there is yet uncertainty as to the mutual relations 
of the texts that have reached us. Very probably it will be found 
that the Latin translation, first published by James in 1893, is a much 
truer witness to the original than the Greek text published in 1866 
by Tischendorf. Important service is rendered to the critical study 
of the Greek text by an ancient Syriac version. In this Apocalypse 
we are introduced to the mysteries that Paul beheld when he ascended 
to the third Heaven, and was caught up into Paradise and heard 

1 Eclog. proph., c. 41. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 14, i. 3 Ib., iii. 3, 2; 25, 4. 
4 De viris illustr., c. i. 5 Sozom., Hist, eccl., vii. 19. 


secret words which it is not granted to man to utter (2 Cor. xii. 2 ff.). 
It pretends to be the work of Paul, but not to be destined for the 
general public. It opens with a brief statement to the effect that 
in the days of Theodosius, and by the direction of an angel, the 
work had been discovered beneath the house in which Paul lived 
while at Tarsus. Through the Prefect of the city this book was 
delivered to the emperor, and by him either the original or a copy 
was sent to Jerusalem. In the company of an angel, Paul leaves 
this world, beholds on his way the departure of the souls of the 
just and the sinful, and arrives at the place of the just souls, in the 
shining land of promise, on the shore of the Acherusian Lake, out 
of which the City of God arises. Thence he is led to the place of 
the godless and beholds the manifold sufferings of the damned. 
Finally he is allowed to visit Paradise, where Adam and Eve had 
committed the first sin. The narrative exhibits a fertile imagination, 
and considerable power of invention. It cannot be shown that it is 
in any way dependent on the Apocalypse of Peter. The work itself 
suggests that it was composed in or about the time of Theodosius 
(379 395)> an d in or near Jerusalem. Traces of it first appear in the 
Tractates or Homilies of St. Augustine on the Gospel of John (98, 8) 
delivered about 416, and in the Church History of Sozomen (vii. 19) 
written about 440. St. Augustine judges with severity the deception 
practised by the writer, but Sozomen is witness that in other circles, 
especially among the monks, the work met with approval. During 
the Middle Ages its popularity was great, as is seen from the many 
versions preserved: Latin, German, French, and English. 

The Greek, or rather a Greek text was published by C. Tischendorf, 
in Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 34 69 (cf. pp. xiv xvm). 
He used two late manuscripts, one of which was a copy of the other. The 
ancient Latin version was edited from an eighth-century manuscript, by 
James, Apocrypha anecdota, Cambridge, 1893, pp. i 42. The ancient 
Syriac versions have reached us only in translation of the same. An English 
translation was printed by J. Perkins, in Journal of the American Oriental 
Society (1866), viii. 183 212. Cf. Andrew Rutherford, in Ante-Nicene 
Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ix. 151166. From another manuscript P. Zingerle 
published a German translation, in Vierteljahrsschrift fiir deutsch- und englisch- 
theologische Forschung und Kritik (1871), iv. 139 183. For later Latin and 
German recensions cf. H. Brandes, Visio S. Pauli, ein Beitrag zur Visions- 
literatur, mit einem deutschen und zwei lateinischen Texten, Halle, 1885. 
He has also treated of French and English translations, in Englische Studien 
(1884), vii. 34 65. For Slavonic texts, manuscripts and printed works cf. 
Bonwetsch , in Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 910 f. - - The 
Apocalypse of Paul is to be carefully distinguished from the AvafiaTix&v 
HauXou, or Ascension of Paul, a second- or third-century work mentioned 
only by Epiphanius (Haer., 38, 2). Like the former it claims to contain the 
unspeakable words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 if. But it was replete with abominable 
things (dppTjToopfCac IjinXecov) and was used exclusively by Cainites and 
Gnostics . The so-called Decretum Gelasii de recip. et non recip. libris 
mentions in connection with this Apocalypse two others of which we know 



nothing more: Revelatio quae appellatur Thomae apocrypha; Revelatio quae 
appellatur Stephani apocrypha (Thiel , Epist. Rom. Pont., Brunsberg, 1868, 
i. 465). The so-called Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books mentions 
Zor/aptoo a~oxak>^. The so-called Stichometria of St. Nicephorus also makes 
mention of an apocryphal work Za/apiou Tratpoc Icoavvou. Berendts is of 
opinion that in both places there is question of a work on the father of 
John the Baptist, written in Palestine in the third or fourth century, for 
the purpose of explaining the words of our Lord concerning the blood 
of Zachary, the son of Barachias (Mt. xxiii. 35; cf. Luke xi. 51). Cf. 
A. Berendts, Studien iiber Zacharias-Apokryphen und Zacharias-Legenden, 
Leipzig, 1895. Under the first of these titles we may probably recognize 
a spurious Apocalypse current under the name of the prophet Zachary. 
P. Macler , L Apocalypse arabe de Daniel, publiee, traduite et annotee, 
Paris, 1004. 




33. Anti-Gnostics. Their lost works. 

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. Against the heresies indicated in the 
preceding pages, the representatives of the Church undertook to de 
monstrate that she alone was in exclusive possession of the truth and 
that only her teachings were justifiable. The doctrines most directly 
threatened or imperilled were naturally those defended with the greatest 
warmth ; thus in the conflict with Gnosticism the belief in the unity of 
God because at once the most important of the ecclesiastical doctrines. 
At the same time the sources and criteria of the teachings of the Church 
were naturally a matter of discussion. The anti-heretical was therefore 
destined to greatly surpass the apologetic literature as a propaedeutic, 
and a foundation for theology or the science of faith. The anti- 
Gnostic writings of the apologists Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Melito, 
and Theophilus of Antioch have been lost; indeed, that has been 
the general fate of the greater part of the anti-Gnostic literature. 

2. AGRIPPA CASTOR. A writer of this name, otherwise unknown 
work to us, wrote during the reign of Hadrian (117 138) a polemical 
against Basilides. Eusebius makes mention of it and praises it highly 1 . 

For the testimonia antiquorum cf. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, 2. ed., 
Oxford, 18461848, i. 8390 (Migne, PG., v. 12691272). 

3. HEGESIPPUS. We possess more copious remains of the Me 
morabilia of Hegesippus. He was an Oriental, born in Syria or in 
Palestine and of Jewish origin, according to Eusebius 2 ; at least he 
was acquainted with Aramaic. An interest in the true Christian 
teaching (b opDoQ MYOQ) led him to the West, and as far as Rome, 

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 7, 6 8; Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 21. 

2 Hist, eccl., iv. 22, 8. 


where, from his own words (though there is a dispute as to their 
proper translation), we learn with certainty l that he sojourned under 
Pope Anicetus (about 155 166) and even survived the reign of Pope 
Eleutherus (about 174 189). On his return to his native land he 
wrote five books that Eusebius sometimes calls xivre auffpdfjLOLTa. 
(1. c. iv. 8, 2) and again Trsyre itTtofjLvfjp.aTa (1. c. iv. 22, I ; cf. ii. 23, 3). 
The latter title is used by Hegesippus himself (ii. 23, 8). Though 
the fragments in Eusebius are mostly historical in character, it does not 
seem possible to reconcile his excerpts with the judgment of Jerome 2 , 
according to w r hich the work of Hegesippus resembled a history of 
the Church. It must have been more like a polemical treatise against 
Gnosticism, with the purpose of setting forth the evidence of eccle 
siastical tradition , particularly its close dependency on the uninter 
rupted episcopal succession. Indeed, Eusebius places the venerable 
Oriental first among the orthodox opponents of the new Gnostic 
heresy, and adds that he had set up a memorial in the simplest 
form to the pure tradition of the Apostolic preaching (frnXouardrfl 
ffuvrdsst fpcuprfi) 3 . Short fragments of Hegesippus are found also 
in Philippus Sidetes and Stephen Gobarus. 

For the last traces of the complete text of the Memorabilia cf. Th. Zahn, 
Der griechische Irenaus und der ganze Hegesippus im 16. und im 17. Jahr- 
hundert, in Theol. Literaturblatt, 1893, pp. 495 497; E. Bratke, ib. 1894, 
pp. 65 67. The fragments extant are found in Routh, 1. c., i. 203 284; 
Migne, 1. c., v. 1307 1328; A. Hilgenfeld, Hegesippus, in Zeitschr. fur 
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1876), xix. 177 229; Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur 
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1900), vi. 228 273. For the hypo 
thesis of Lightfoot that the Papal catalogue in Epiphanius (Haer.-, 27, 6) 
is taken from the work of Hegesippus, see Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Ab- 
handlungen und Untersuchungen (1897), i. 373 390; Zahn, 1. c., pp. 243 
to 246; y. Flamion, in Revue d histoire ecclesiastique (1900), i. 672 678-, 
y. Chapman, in Revue Benedictine (1901), xviii. 410 417; (1902), xix. 
1330, 144170 (for Lightfoot). Th. Jess, Hegesippos nach seiner kirchen- 
geschichtlichen Bedeutung, in Zeitschr. fur die histor. Theol. (1865), xxxv. 
395. K. F. Nosgen, Der kirchliche Standpunkt Hegesipps, in Zeitschr. 
fur Kirchengesch. (1877 1878), ii. 193 233. A. Hilgenfeld, Hegesippus 
und die Apostelgeschichte , in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1878), 
xxi. 297 330. H. Dannreuther , Du temoignage d Hege sippe sur 1 eglise 
chretienne aux deux premiers siecles, Nancy, 1878. H. S. Laivlor, Two 
notes on Eusebius, in Hermathena (1900), xi. 10 49. 

4. RHODON. During the reign of Commodus (180 192) this writer, 
born in Asia Minor and subsequently a disciple of Tatian at Rome, 
developed an apparently manifold literary activity. He wrote a work 
against the sect of Marcion, and a Commentary on the Hexaemeron 
(etQ TTjv k$afjfjLpoy faofjivyfjiaj, perhaps against Apelles ( 25, 7) 4 . In 
his work against Marcion, from which Eusebius has quoted interesting 

1 Ib., iv. 22, 23. 2 De viris illustr., c. 22. 

3 Hist, eccl., iv. 8, i 2. 4 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 13. 


paragraphs, Rhodon made known his intention to write a reply to the 
Problems of Tatian, under the title 7ipo^^p.drco^ ixducreiQ. Jerome 
has wrongly 1 attributed to him an anonymous work against the Mon- 
tanists ( 35, 2) mentioned in Eusebius. 

Routh, 1. c., i. 435446 (Migne, 1. c., v. 1331 1338). 

period belong Philippus, bishop of Gortyna in Crete, who wrote 
against Marcion 2 , Modestus who exposed the same errors with special 
skill 3 , and Musanus who addressed a very grave Letter to some brethren 
who had apostatized to the sect of the Encratites *. At a later date 
other writings circulated under the name of Modestus 5 . 

6. HERACLITUS AND OTHERS. In evidence of the industry of eccle 
siastical men at the end of the second century Eusebius 6 mentions 
the work of Heraclitus on the Apo^lle (Paul), and that of Maximus 
on the origin of evil and the creation of matter, questions much dis 
cussed by heretics, the work of Candidus on the Hexaemeron and 
that of Apion on the same subject, also a work of Sextus on the 
resurrection, and a work of Arabianus on another subject. Jerome 
made some additions to this passage of Eusebius 7 . 

The mention of Maximus as a Christian writer must be an error \ else 
where (Praep. evang., vii. 22) Eusebius quotes a lengthy passage from 
the supposed work of Maximus: Routh, 1. c., ii. 75 121; Migne, 1. c., v. 
1337 1356. The whole paragraph appears, word for word, in the work 
of St. Methodius of Olympus on free will : Bonwetsch , Methodius von 
Olympus, Schriften, 1891, i. 15 38. Probably Eusebius was misled into 
attributing the work of St. Methodius to an older, real or imaginary, 
writer named Maximus. Cf. Th. Zahn , in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. 
(18871888), ix. 224229. y. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen, 
Cambridge, 1893, pp. XL XLIX. 

34. Irenaeus of Lyons. 

I. HIS LIFE. Irenseus was born in Asia Minor, about 140, in 
or near Smyrna, it is supposed. He was wont to repeat 8 that he 
listened, as a child, to the discourses of Poly carp, the aged bishop 
of Smyrna. He is said, on later evidence, to have been at Rome 
when Polycarp died (Febr. 23., 155). He was certainly a presbyter 
of the Church of Lyons during the persecution of its members by 
Marcus Aurelius. On that occasion the clergy of Lyons and Vienne, 
most of whom were in prison, sent Irenseus (177 178) to Pope Eleu- 
therus at Rome, with a letter that treated of the Montanist troubles, 
and in which they styled Irenaeus one who was zealous for the 

1 De viris illustr., cc. 37, 39. 

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 25; cf. iv. 21, 23, 5. 3 Ib., iv. 25; cf. 21. 
4 Ib., iv. 28; cf. 21. 5 Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 32. 

6 Hist, eccl., v. 27. 7 De viris illustr., cc. 46 51. 

8 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 20, 5 ; Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 3, 4, ed. Massuet. 


Testament of Christ 1 . On his return he was made bishop of Lyons 
in succession to the martyred Pothinus, and as such devoted his 
energies mainly to the overthrow of the false Gnosis. During the 
reign of Pope Victor I. (189 198/199) he took a leading part in 
the discussions that arose about the Easter celebration, doing 
honour to his name (Elpyvaws) and bearing himself as a peacemaker 
(slpyvoTtoifaz)* i says Eusebius 2 . The date of his death is unknown. 
According to a tradition first met with in Jerome 3 he suffered 
martyrdom under Septimius Severus (193 211). 

Ch. E. Freppel, St. Irenee, Paris, 1861 ; 3. ed. 1886. H. Ziegler, Irenaus, 
der Bischof von Lyon, Berlin, 1871. R, A. Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenaus 
vonLyon, in Histor. Zeitschr. (1872), xxviii. 241 295. A. Gouilloud, St. Irenee 
et son temps, Lyon, 1876. E. Montet , La legende d Irenee et 1 intro- 
duction du christianisme a Lyon, Geneve, 1880. J?. A. Lipsius, Irenaeus, in 
Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1882, iii. 253 279. Zahn, Forschungen 
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1891), iv. 249 283; (1900), 
vi. 27 40. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1897), ii. i, 320 333. 

2. THE AD VERSUS HAERESES. The most important legacy of 
Irenaeus is an extensive work against Gnosticism, entitled Detection 
and Overthrow of the pretended but false Gnosis fs^ey/OQ xal 
dvarpoKT] TTJQ (^eodoj^ofjLO j yvajoza)^) , usually known as Adversus 
Haereses 4 . It is unfortunate that we no longer possess the ori 
ginal Greek of this work, which has been handed down, however, 
in a Latin translation that was executed shortly after the composi 
tion of the original, and exhibits a most conscientious fidelity, even 
a slavish literalness. Fragments of the Greek text, notably the 
greater part of the first book, have reached us through citations 
from it made by later writers, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and 
others. There are also some short fragments preserved in a Syriac 
translation. According to the introduction to the first book the 
work was begun at the request of a friend, probably a bishop, who 
wished to know more about the heresy of Valentine, with a view 
to its refutation. In the execution of his enterprise the plan seems to 
have grown larger as the author advanced; it is also supposed that 
a considerable period of time elapsed between the composition of 
the first book and the completion of the fifth. We have no means 
of fixing more definitely the periods of composition of the separate 
books of this work; in the third book (iii. 3, 3) Eleutherus is designated 
as the contemporary bishop of Rome (about 174 189). Methodical 
disposition of the material, consecutiveness of thought, and pro 
gressive exposition are to a great extent wanting in the Adversus 
Haereses. The first book is mostly taken up with the detection 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 4, 2. 2 Ib., v. 24, 18. 

3 Comm. in Is. ad 64, 4 ff. 

4 Hieron., De vir. illustr., c. 35, after Eus., Hist, eccl., ii. 13, 5; iii. 28, 6: Ttpbq 
raq aipdastg. 


or exposure of the Gnostic doctrines; the other four are devoted to 
their refutation . In the second book dialectico-philosophical ar 
guments predominate, while in the third it is principally ecclesiastical 
tradition and the Holy Scripture that the author invokes. The main 
scope of the work is to disprove the Gnostic thesis that the Creator 
of the world is another than the Supreme God ; this teaching is ex 
pressly declared (ii. i, i) to be the blasphemous foundation of all 
Gnosis. The fourth book rounds out the scriptural proofs, confirming 
with the sayings of the Lord (per Domini sermones, iv. praef.) the 
previous teaching of the Apostles (sententia apostolorum). Among 
the sayings of the Lord are understood also the words of the prophets 
(cf. iv. 2, 3). The fifth book is eschatological in character. The 
doctrine of the resurrection ot the body is variously defended, and 
at the end (cc. 32 36) are developed the Chiliastic theories peculiar 
to Irenaeus. His description of the Gnostic systems is based almost 
entirely on his own reading of their writings ( 25, 3). He is also 
well-acquainted with such other ecclesiastical writers as Ignatius, 
Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Hegesippus. 

For the latest traces of the Greek text of the Adversus haereses cf. 
the study of Zahn ( 33, 3). Fr. Loofs, Die Handschriften der lateinischen 
Ubersetzung des Irenaus und ihre Kapitelteilung, in Kirchengesch. Studien, 
H. Renter zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, Leipzig, 1888, pp. i 93, se 
parately printed, Leipzig, 1890. G. Mercati, Di alcuni miovi sussidii per 
la critica del testo di S. Cipriano, Rome, 1899, pp. 100 107. Id., Note 
di litterature biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, v.), Rome, 1901, 
pp. 241 243. The following editions are based on an independent study 
of the manuscripts: D. Erasmus, Basle, 1526; Fr. Feuardent , Cologne, 
1596 (reprinted in 1639); ? E- Grabe, Oxford, 1702; R. Massuet, Paris, 
1710 (reprinted Venice, 1734); A. Stieren, Leipzig, 1848 1853; W. W. 
Harvey , Cambridge, 1857. It is admitted that by far the best edition 
is that of Massuet, reprinted in Migne, PG., vii (1857). Some new frag 
ments of the Greek text were published by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus , in 
AvaXexra fepoaoXufMTixrjc aTa^uoXo-yi ac, St. Petersburg, 1891, i. 387 389; cf. 
y. Haussleiter , in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1893 1894), xiv. 69 73. 
For the Syriac and Armenian fragments see Harvey 1. c., ii. 431 453, 
and P. Martin, in Pitra , Analecta Sacra, Paris, 1883, iv. 17 sq. 292 ft. 
There is a German translation by H. Hayd, in Bibliothek der Kirchen- 
vater, Kempten, 1872 1873. There is an English translation of the 
writings of Irenaeus by Roberts and Rambaut , in Ante-Nicene Fathers 
(Am. ed. 1885), i. 315578. 

source and standard of faith is the self-identical apostolic tradition that 
is continuous in the Church. The unbroken succession of the bishops, 
the representatives of the ecclesiastical magisterium in the churches 
founded by the Apostles, guarantees and proves the apostolicity of 
the doctrine taught in these churches; the Apostles appointed as 
their successors only very perfect and blameless men, and these 
in turn handed down to their successors the doctrine of the Apostles 


pure and undefiled *. As it would be too tedious to enumerate 
in such a work the official succession of all the churches (omnium 
ecclesiarum enumerare successions), he holds it sufficient to prove 
that the greatest and the oldest church, the one well-known to all 
men, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious 
Apostles Peter and Paul, can trace back the list of its bishops to 
the days of the Apostles ; its teaching can, therefore, rightly lay claim 
to the character of apostolicity : Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter 
potentiorem (potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire 
ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab 
his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio 
(III. 3, 2). These words may be rightly translated as follows: With 
this church, because of its higher rank, every church must agree, 
i. e. the faithful of all places, in which (in communion with which) 
the apostolic tradition has been always preserved by the (faithful) of 
all places . Heretics wrongly maintained that the Jesus born of 
Mary was another than the Christ who descended from Heaven. 
Otherwise, Matthew could well have said (i. 18): The generation 
of Jesus w r as in this wise. Foreseeing, however, the perverters of 
faith and forestalling their deceit, the Holy Spirit said through Matthew 
(Spiritus Sanctus per Matthaeum ait) : the generation of Christ was 
in this wise (i. 18), and they shall call his name Emmanuel (i. 22 f), 
that we might not consider him a mere man, and believe that he 
was another than the Christ, but rather know that He is one and the 
same (iii. 16, 2). He must be God and Man in the same person, 
for if it were not a man who had overcome the opponent of man 
kind, the enemy would not have been vanquished in the right way 
fdcxaiajQj. And again, if it were not God who gave to us our sal 
vation, it would not have been firmly assured to us (flsjSatWQ, iii. 18, /). 
The Word of God became man in order that man, taking on the 
Word and receiving the Sonship, might be the Son of God (iii. 19, i ; 
the text is somewhat uncertain). Irenseus, like Justin 2 , recognizes that 
the Virgin Mother also has her place in the work of salvation. As Eve, 
the wife of one man (Adam), though herself yet a virgin, was through 
her disobedience the cause of death to herself and the entire human 
race, so Mary, the wife of one man (foreordained for her), and yet 
herself a virgin, was through her obedience the source of salvation 
(causa salutis) for herself and the whole human race (iii. 22, 4). 
If the former had been disobedient to God, the latter was persuaded 
to obey Him, that the Virgin Mary might be the advocate (advocata) 
of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race fell into the slavery of 
death through a virgin, so should it be saved by a virgin ; the balance 
is made even \vhen virginal obedience is weighed against virginal 
disobedience (v. 19, i). 

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, i. 2 Dial. c. Tryph., c. 100. 


V. Courdaveaux, St. Irenee, in Revue de 1 hist. des religions (1890), xxi. 
149 175. F. Cabrol, La doctrine de St. Irene e et la critique de M. Cour 
daveaux, Paris and Lyons, 1891. J. Kunze, Die Gotteslehre des Irenaus 
(Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1891. L. Duncker, Des hi. Irenaus Christologie, 
im Zusammenhange mit dessen theologischen und anthropologischen Grund- 
lehren dargestellt, Gottingen, 1843. G. Molwitz, De dcvaxs^oXawoaewc in 
Irenaei theologia potestate (Dissert, inaug.), Dresden, 1874. E. Klebba, 
Die Anthropologie des hi. Irenaus, Miinster, 1894 (Kirchengesch. Studien, 
ii. 3). H. Hagemann, Die romische Kirche ... in den ersten drei Jahr- 
hunderten, Freiburg, 1864, pp. 598 627: Irenaus iiber den Primat der 
romischen Kirche. Acta et decreta ss. concil. recent. Collectio Lacensis, 
Freiburg, 1873, iv. v xxxiv: S. Irenaei de ecclesiae Romanae principatu 
testimonium. Cf. ^4d. Harnack, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. 
der Wissensch., Berlin, 1893, pp. 939 955; J. Chapman, in Revue Bene 
dictine (1895), xii. 49 64; Funk, in Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und 
Untersuchungen (1897), i. i 23-, L. Hopfenmiiller , S. Irenaeus de Eucharistia 
(Dissert, inaug.), Bamberg, 1867; J. Koerber, S. Irenaeus de gratia sancti- 
ficante (Dissert, inaug.), Wiirzburg, 1865 ; L. Atzberger, Gesch. der christl. 
Eschatologie innerhalb der vornican. Zeit, Freiburg, 1896, pp. 219 263; 
J. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaus, Leipzig, 1889 (Texte und Unter 
suchungen, etc., vi. 2); Gry, Le millenarisme dans ses origines et son 
developpement, Paris, 1904. 

4. OTHER WRITINGS. Irenaeus wrote many other works that have 
perished, with the exception of a few insignificant fragments. He 
says (Adv. haer. i. 27, 4; Hi. 12, 12) that he intended to write a 
special refutation of Marcion; we do not know whether he carried 
out his intention. To the Roman priest Florinus, who leaned toward 
the teachings of Valentine, he addressed a work on the Monarchy (of 
God), or to the effect that God is not the author of evil (its pi /lovap/taQ 
7] Kepi TOO fj.7) elvai rbv $zbv 7iotY]TT^ xaxojvj. Later, when Florinus 
had abandoned the Church, Irenaeus wrote a treatise On the 
Ogdoad (ntp\ dydoddoQJ, probably on the Valentinian cycle of yEons. 
Eusebius quotes a passage from each of these works *. We gather 
from a Syriac fragment that Irenaeus wrote to Pope Victor entreating 
him to withstand Florinus and to suppress his writings. Irenaeus 
also wrote to the same Pope apropos of the Paschal celebration, 
likewise to many other heads of churches 2 . From one such letter 
Eusebius made a lengthy excerpt 3 . It was perhaps the same question 
that he treated in a letter On Schism (mpt a^iffp.aTOQ) written 
to Blastus, a Roman Quartodeciman 4 . Eusebius mentions 5 a brief 
work of Irenaeus against the heathens, entitled: xpbc, "EXtyvaq XO^OQ 
nep\ inter f/fjiyc, eTT^e^oa^syog, which Jerome incorrectly reads 6 : Con 
tra gentes volumen breve et de disciplina aliud. Eusebius gives 
also the titles of some other works : a demonstration of the apostolic 
preaching (elq eTtidetgw TOO dxociTohxoo vqpUffjLa Coq), and a book 
of miscellaneous discourses)) (fttftAlov rt dta^i^ecov diaybpwv), probably 

1 Hist, eccl., v. 20. 2 Ib., v. 24, 18. 3 Ib., v. 24, n ff. 

4 Ib., v. 20, I. 5 Ib., v. 26. c De viris illustr., c. 35. 


a collection of homilies. Maximus Confessor quotes * some phrases 
from a work of St. Irenaeus on faith (nepi TrlffrsajQ X6fot). Little 
credit is to be given to the inscription of a Syriac fragment pur 
porting to be the work of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, (taken) 
from his exposition of the first (chapter?) of the Canticle of Canticles . 
The four Greek fragments, known from their editor, Chr. M. PfafT 
(1714), as the Pfaffian Fragments, were until quite lately an object of 
erudite dissension. Harnack has proved them to be forgeries of PfarT. 

The fragments of other writings are found in the already cited editions 
of Adversus haereses , e. g. in Massuet, Paris, 1710, pp. 339 348; Migne, 
PG., vii. 1225 1264; Stieren , i. 821 897; Harvey, ii. 454 511. Cf. 
Pitra, Analecta Sacra, Paris, 1884, ii. 194 210. The Syriac and Armenian 
fragments are in Harvey, ii. 454 469, and somewhat increased in Martin- 
Pitra, 1. c. , iv. 26 ff. 299 ff. ; cf. Preuschen , in Harnack, Gesch. der 
altchristl. Literatur, i. 266 ff. ; Harnack, 1. c., ii. i, 518 ff. For the fragments 
of the letter or letters to Pope St. Victor, see Zahn, 1. c., iv. 283 308. 
The question of the Pfaffian Fragments is treated by Harnack, in Texte 
und Untersuchungen, xx, new series (1900), v. 3, i 69. Cf. P. Batiffol, 
in Bulletin de litte rature ecclesiast. (1901), ii. 189 200. 

35. Anti-Montanists. 

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. The most prominent element in the 
controversy between the Montanists and the Catholics were the ec 
static discourses of the prophets of Montanism. These ecstasies, 
whether in the shape of swoonings or _delirium, were put forward 
by the Montanists as evidence of the purity and truth of their re 
velations. The Catholics denounced them as deceitful signs of pseudo- 
prophecy 2 . We have already mentioned the anti-Montanist letters 
of Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and the work of the apologist 
Miltiades ( 19, i 2). The statement of the author of Praedestinatus 
(i. 26; cf. 86) that Pope Soter (f ca. 174) wrote a book against the 
Montanists, is subject to caution. 

2. THE ANONYMOUS OF 192/193. We have to regret the loss of 
a polemical work against Montanism from which Eusebius made se 
veral excerpts 3 . Its three books included not only a refutation of 
the Montanist teaching, but also detailed information concerning the 
history of the Montanist prophets. From internal data it must have 
been published not later than the early part of 193. The author was 
a priest of Asia Minor; his name is not given by Eusebius. Jerome 4 has 
too hastily identified him with the anti-Gnostic Rhodon ( 33, 4). 

The Eusebian fragments of the Anonymous are in Routh, Reliquiae 
Sacrae (2. ed.), ii. 181 217; also in Migne, PG., x. 145 156. Cf. G. N. 
Bonwetsch, Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881, pp. 27 29; 
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1893), 
v. 1321. 

1 Migne, PG., xci. 276. - Tertull., Adv. Marc., iv. 22. 

8 Hist, eccl., v. 16 17. 4 De viris illustr., cc. 37. 39. 


3. APOLLONIUS. The anti-Montanist work of the ecclesiastical 
writer Apollonius was another important historical authority used by 
Eusebius in his description of the Phrygian heresy t . This work 
of Apollonius was very probably written in 197, and contained ab 
undant historical material. Apollonius was also a native of Asia 
Minor, and is said in Praedestinatus (i. 26 27 86) to have been 
bishop of Ephesus. 

The Eusebian fragments are collected in Rottth , 1. c., i. 463 485; 
Mignc , 1. c., v. 1381 1386. Cf. Bonwetsch , 1. c., 29 ff. ; Zahn, 1. c., v. 


4. CAIUS. In the reign of Pope Zephyrin (199 217) the Roman 
Caius, an ecclesiastical and very learned man 2 published a 
polemical dialogue against the Montanist Proclus. Eusebius gathered 
a few phrases from it for his history 3 . In 1888, J. Gwynn published, 
with a commentary, some new fragments of this dialogue taken from 
the Capitula of St. Hippolytus against Caius. In this work Hippo- 
lytus defended the Apocalypse of St. John against Caius who had 
declared in his dialogue that it was the work of Cerinthus. The 
information concerning Caius found in Photius 4 , when not based on 
Eusebius, is untrustworthy; he confounds Caius with Hippolytus or 
rather with the author of the Philosophoumena. 

The Caius fragments are collected in Routh, 1. c., ii. 123 158; Migne, 
1. c., x. 25 36. For the fragments of the Capitula of Hippolytus against 
Caius cf. 54, 3. For Cains consult especially Zahn, Gesch. des neu- 
testamentl. Kanons, etc., ii. 985 991. G. Salmon, in Diet, of Christian 
Biogr., London, 1877, i. 384 386. 

5. AN UNKNOWN WRITER. Epiphanius knew and used an ancient 
work that criticized very severely the prophecy of the Montanists, 
especially their ecstatic utterances 5 . Voigt believed that this was a 
work by Rhodon ; RolfTs held it to have been written by Hippolytus. 
Both opinions are subject to grave objections. 

H. G. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes. 
Die Berichte des Epiphanius liber die Kataphryger und Quintillianer unter- 
sucht, Leipzig, 1891. E. Rolffs, Urkunden aus dem antimontanistischen 
Kampfe des Abendlandes, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1895, xii. 
99 ff. 122 ff. 

36. Writings of Ecclesiastical Authorities and Synods, chiefly concerning 
Heresies and Schisms. 

I. WRITINGS OF POPES. Pope Soter (ca. 166174) wrote a 
Letter to the Christians of Corinth in the name of the Roman com 
munity ( 8, 2 3); he is also said to have written a work against 

1 Hist, eccl., v. 18. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., ii. 25, 6; vi. 20, 3. 

3 Ib., vi. 20; ii. 25, 67; iii. 28, i 2, 31, 4. 4 Bibl. Cod. 48. 

5 Haer., 48, 1 13. 


the Montanists (35, i). The Roman bishop who, according to 
Tertullian *, gave letters of communion to the Montanist communities 
in Asia Minor, but soon withdrew them, was either Pope Eleutherus 
(ca. 174 189; cf. 34, i) or his successor, Pope Victor I. (189 to 
198/199). During the great controversy concerning the time of 
the Easter celebration, Pope Victor wrote several Encyclical Letters, 
it is supposed to all the churches ; among them were a Letter which 
urged the holding of synods for the settling of these troubles 2 , a 
Letter in promulgation of the decision of a Roman synod 3 , and a 
Letter which excluded the refractory churches of Asia Minor from 
ecclesiastical communion on the ground that their stubborn retention 
of the Quartodeciman custom proclaimed them heretics *. Victor was 
a native of Roman Africa, and according to St. Jerome 5 wrote some 
theological treatises in Latin (mediocria de religione volumina 6 j. 
For this reason he is reckoned by St. Jerome the first of the Latin 
ecclesiastical writers. According to Optatus of Mileve Pope Zephyrin 
(199 217), wrote a work against heretics 7 . 

For the testimonia concerning Pope Victor, cf. Caspar i, Quellen zur 
Gesch. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1875, iii. 413 f. 
432 ff . ; Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat De aleatoribus, in Texte 
und Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1888, v. i, no ff. For the tractate De 
aleatoribus that Harnack adjudicated to Pope Victor, cf. 51, 6 g. J. Turmel, 
L glise romaine jusqu au pape Victor, in Revue catholique des figlises, 
1905, 321. 

2. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth and con 
temporary of Pope Soter (see p. 123), was highly esteemed in his time, 
and his judgment sought for by many churches in matters of contro 
versy. There was extant in the days of Eusebius a collection of 
his seven Catholic Letters written to as many communities, together 
with a private letter of Dionysius 8 . The last of these Catholic 
Letters was written in grateful response to a letter of the Roman 
community; Eusebius has preserved for us four interesting and valuable 
passages 9 . He says also 10 that the Letter to the Nicomedians was 
directed against the heresy of Marcion. Apropos of the Letter to 
the community of Cnossus in Crete, Eusebius tells us n of a reply 
to Dionysius, written by Pinytus, bishop of Cnossus. What Jerome 
relates 12 about Dionysius and Pinytus is taken from Eusebius. 

Cf. Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2. ed.), i. 175 201: BB. Dionysius et 

1 Adv. Prax., c. i. 2 Polycrates, in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 8. 

3 Eus., 1. c., v. 23, 3. 4 Ib., v. 24, 9. 

5 De viris illustr., c. 53 ; cf. c. 34. 

6 Hier., Chron. ad a. Abr. 2209. 

7 De schism. Donat., i. 9. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 23. 

9 Ib., iv. 23, 1012; ii. 25, 8. 10 Ib., iv. 23, 4. ll Ib., iv. 23, 78. 

12 De viris illustr., cc. 27 28. 


3. SERAPION OFANTIOCH. Serapion, bishop of Antioch (199 211), 
wrote many Letters, the addresses of some of which are made known 
to us by Eusebius *, e. g. one to a certain Domninus, who had fallen 
away from the Christian faith during a persecution and become a 
Jew ; another to Pontius and Caricus against Montanism 2 , also a Letter 
to the Christians of Rhossus warning them not to read the Gospel 
of Peter ( 29, 5). 

Cf. Routh, 1. c., i. 447 462; Migne, PG., v. 1371 1376. For other 
details concerning Serapion see de Buck , in Acta SS. Oct. (xm), Paris, 
1883, pp. 248252. 

a result of the Encyclical Letter of Pope Victor I. (see p. 125) 
synods were held in several places, to discuss the celebration of 
Easter, and the decisions of the Fathers were communicated to the 
Pope. Eusebius gives a list of such synods, and quotes some frag 
ments from their writings 3 . 

These fragments are two passages from the Letter which a synod ot 
Asia Minor sent to the Pope through Polycrates of Ephesus in justification 
of the Quartodeciman practice (cf. Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 2 8; iii. 31, 3; 
Hier., De viris illustr., c. 45), and the conclusion of a Letter sent to the 
Pope by a synod of Palestine that was presided over by Theophilus, 
bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. It decided for the 
Western (Roman) practice (cf. Eus., 1. c., v. 25; Hier., 1. c., c. 43). The 
latter fragment is in Routh., 1. c., ii. i 7; Migne,, 1. c., v. 1365 1372; 
for the other two see Routh, ii. 936; Migne, v. 1355 1362. The 
Letter of Bacchyllus, bishop of Corinth, was a private missive (cf. Eus., 
1. c., v. 23, 4), erroneously stated by Jerome (1. c. , c. 44) to have been 
a synodical writing. 




37. General Considerations. 

Since the end of the second century the need of a scientific 
treatment of the teaching of the Church was felt with increasing 
force. History, exegesis, and philosophy put forward their claims as 
auxiliaries of Christian truth. Ecclesiastical literature thus entered 
upon new lines of development; new aims and new paths were 
opened up. The older apologists and anti-heretical writers had created 
a literature of defence and attack; henceforth there was to be, 
within the Church herself, a peaceful growth of literary activity. This 

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 12; cf. Hier on., De viris illustr., c. 41. 

2 Hist, eccl., v. 19. 3 Ib., v. 2325. 


scientific tendency was liveliest in the Christian East where the 
catechetical school of Alexandria soon became known as a famous 
centre and nursery of ecclesiastical science. Its origin is shrouded 
in obscurity. About 180, it appears in full operation, but as an 
institution long-since established *. It was probably at first only a 
school for catechumens , but when Pantaenus took charge of it, 
about 1 80, it must have already acquired the character of a Chris 
tian academy in which all Greek science was studied and made 
to do apologetic service in favour of the Christian cause. Under 
Clement and Origen it reached the acme of its renown that however 
began to fade in the fourth century. The devotion to scientific labours 
now spread from Alexandria to Palestine. Alexander, a disciple of 
the catechists Pantaenus and Clement, began, as bishop of Jeru 
salem, a theological library in the Holy City itself 2 . A little later, 
about 233, when Origen sought a new home in Palestine, he opened 
a school at Caesarea in which the scientific element was even more 
strongly emphasized than at Alexandria. In the second half of the 
same century the learned presbyter Pamphilus laboured actively at 
Caesarea for the academical interests of the Church. He is usually 
credited with having founded there the famous library that was so 
serviceable to Eusebius and Jerome ; there can be no doubt, however, 
that the beginnings of this most valuable of all the ancient Christian 
libraries were owing to Origen 3 . The Christian masters of Alex 
andria extended their vigorous and efficient influence as far as Asia 
Minor. Of the two most important ecclesiastical writers that we 
meet there in the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus was a 
disciple of Origen, bred in his school at Caesarea , while Methodius 
of Olympus made it his life-work to oppose the theology of that 

H. E. F. Guerike , De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica, 
Halle, 1824 1825, i ii. C. F. W, Hasselbach, De schola quae Alexandriae 
floruit catechetica, Stettin, 1826 1839, i n - Ch> Bigg > The Christian 
Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. F. Lehmann, Die Katechetenschule 
zu Alexandria kritisch beleuchtet, Leipzig, 1896 (of small value). A. Ehr- 
hard , Die griechische Patriarchalbibliothek von Jerusalem , in Rom. 
Quartalschr. fiir christl. Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengesch. (1891), v. 
217265 329331 383384; (1892), vi. 339365- 

38. Clement of Alexandria. 

I . HIS LIFE. Titus Flavius Clemens was born about 1 50, probably 
at Athens 4 , it is supposed of heathen parents. After his conversion 
to Christianity he travelled extensively through Southern Italy, Syria 

1 c &p%aiou $oy?, Etts., Hist, eccl., v. 10, i. 2 Ib., vi. 20, I. 

3 Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 113. 4 Epiph., Haer., 32, 6. 


and Palestine, finally through Egypt, seeking everywhere the society 
and instruction of Christian teachers l . At Alexandria he fell 
under the spell of the catechist Pantaenus. As a result, he took 
up his permanent residence in that city, apparently a little before 
1 80, and became a presbyter of that church 2 . Since about 190 he 
was the associate and assistant of Pantsenus in the \vork of the 
school; after the death of the latter, about 200, he took up the 
head-mastership of the same 3 . As early as 202 or 203 he was 
obliged to quit Alexandria because of the persecution that broke 
out under Septimius Severus. We meet him , about 2 1 1 , in Asia 
Minor in the company of his former disciple Alexander, the future 
bishop of Jerusalem 4 . A letter of Alexander to Origen, written in 
215 or 216, speaks of Clement as a father gone to his rest 5 . 

y. H. Reinkens, De Clemente presbytero alexandrine, homine, scriptore, 
philosophic, theologo liber, Breslau, 1851. E. Freppel , Clement d Alex- 
andrie, Paris, 1865; 3. ed. Paris, 1886. B. F. Westcott, Clement of Alex 
andria, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1877, i. 559 567. F. Bohringer, 
Die griechischen Vater des 3. und 4. Jahrhunderts. i. Clemens und Ori- 
genes (Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, i. 2, i, 2. ed.), Zurich, 1869. 
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1884), 
iii. 156 176. 

2. CLEMENT AS A WRITER. He is an epoch-making figure in the 
history of the growth of early Christian literature. He differs from 
his teachers inasmuch as they had confined themselves to oral in 
struction, while he added thereto the use of the written page as 
an academical means of forming the minds of his pupils 6 . His 
purpose is the scientific establishment of the teachings of the 
Church; he is desirous of furnishing it with a good basis of philo 
sophy and of reconciling it with contemporary thought. The source 
of his frequent slips and errors is to be found in the fact that he 
is better equipped to appreciate the ideal content of Christian truth 
than to expound the positive theology of redemption. To the cause 
of Christianity, which he espoused with a generous zeal, he brought 
a highly gifted nature and an encyclopedic knowledge. Clement 
is well-acquainted with the profane writers of Greece, and particularly 
with the works of Plato. Much of the earlier ecclesiastical literature 
was also well-known to him. His diction is relatively pure, and his 
exposition flowery and exuberant and very agreeable 7 . Of the 
extensive Introduction to Christianity to which he devoted many 
years of his life, nearly all has been preserved (Protrepticus, Paed- 
agogus, Stromata). He wrote another important work, the Hypotyposes, 
of which only insignificant fragments have come down to us. Similarly, 
out of a series of minor writings only one Homily has been preserved. 

1 Strom., i. i, n. 2 Paed., i. 6, 37. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 6. 

4 Ib., vi. n, 5 6. 5 Ib., vi. 14, 89. 

6 Strom., i. i, 1114; cf. Eclog. 27. 7 Phot., Bibl. Cod. no. 


The first editions of his works were brought out by P. Victorius, Flo 
rence, 1550, and by Fr. Sylburg , Heidelberg, 1592. The best and most 
complete edition is that of J. Potter, Oxford, 1715 (Venice, 1757), 2 voll., 
often reprinted, e. g. by Fr. Oberthiir, Wiirzburg, 1778 1779, 3 voll.; 
. Klotz, Leipzig, 18311834, 4 voll.; Migne, PG., viii ix. 1857. The 
edition of TV. Dindorf, Oxford, 1869, 4 voll., failed to meet the reasonable 
expectations of many. Cf. P. de Lagarde, in Gotting. gelehrte Anzeigen, 
1870, pp. 801 824, and Id., Symmikta, Gottingen, 1877, pp. 10 24. 
Valuable contributions to these editions of Clement are found in Zahn, 
Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1884), iii: Supple- 
mentum Clementinum. O. Staehlin , Observationes criticae in Clementem 
Alexandrinum (Dissert, inaug.), Erlangen, 1890. Id., Beitrage zur Kenntnis 
der Handschriften des Glemens Alexandrinus (Progr.), Niirnberg, 1895. 
Id., Untersuchungen liber die Scholien zu Clemens Alex. (Progr.), Niirn 
berg, 1897. Preuschen, in Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 
296 327. O. Staehlin, Zur handschriftlichen Uberlieferung des Clemens 
Alex., Leipzig, 1901 (Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. 4). 

are parts of a complete whole 1 designed to act as a graduated or 
progressive introduction to Christianity. The first part or Exhortation 
to the Heathen (npoTpsirTixoQ xpbc, EXX^vaq) is closely related, in 
form and contents, to the earlier apologetic literature of the second 
century. It opens with an eloquent invitation to listen no more to 
the mythical chants about the gods of heathendom, but to the new 
song of which the Logos that went forth from Sion is at once singer 
and theme (c. i). Thereupon it exposes the folly and worthlessness 
of the heathen religious beliefs and practices (cc. 2 7), and praises 
the truth made known by the prophets (cc. 8 12). The three 
books of the Paedagogus (iratdaftofogj are meant as a training in the 
new Christian life for the reader who has already turned away from 
heathenism 2 . The first book treats of the educational purpose of the 
Logos, of the children (^aidsq) to be educated, and of the educational 
method, a combination of love and mildness with wrathful and puni 
tive justice. The other two books contain detailed instruction con 
cerning food and drink, dwellings and furniture, feasts and amuse 
ments, sleep and recreation, the relations of the sexes, dress and 
ornament, and the like. Apart from a few chapters, especially 
at the beginning and close of the third book, the text does not rise 
above the level of a sprightly causerie. It often assumes a facetious 
tinge and occasionally runs over, especially in polemic, into broad 
humour. In some later manuscripts two Hymns are added to the 
Paedagogus, a Hymn to Jesus Christ (UJUVOQ TOO aatrr^poQ XpLaroo) 
attributed to Clement and perhaps written by him, or at least added 
by him to the text, and a Hymn to the Paedagogus (slq rov 
natdafaiyov), by some unknown reader of the work. - - In the only 
manuscript that has reached us of the third and crowning section of 

1 Paed., i. i; Strom., vi. i, i. 2 Cf. Paed., i. i. 



this introduction, it is entitled a^ocojuars^ or Miscellanies (strictly, 
Tapestries ). Internal evidence shows that the original title was xara 
T7]v dtyd-rj <pikoao<pta.v fywa-wwy bitopvyftaTtov arpoifjLarstQ 9 i. e. Ta 
pestries of scientific commentaries according to the true philosophy *. 
It was his intention to present in this work a scientific account of 
the revealed truths of Christianity 2 . The contents however cor 
respond very imperfectly to our just expectations. The Stromata 
are ever relapsing into the propaedeutic tone of the Protrepticus and 
the Paedagogus, or entering upon lines of apologetic discourse, or 
taking up questions of practical morality; thus they repeatedly put 
off the treatment of the theme announced in their opening para 
graph. The first book deals chiefly with the importance of philo 
sophy and its utility for Christian knowledge. In the second book 
the author insists strongly on the superiority of revealed truth to 
all the works of human reason. In the third and fourth books he 
calls attention to two practical criteria that differentiate, in striking- 
contrast, the Catholic from the heretical Gnosis - - they are the 
striving for moral perfection visible in virginal and married chastity, 
and the love of God as made manifest in martyrdom. The fifth 
book returns to the relations of the true Gnosis and faith, deals 
with the symbolical presentation of the truths of religion, and enu 
merates the elements of truth borrowed by the Hellenic from the 
so-called barbarian (Jewish and Christian) philosophy. The sixth 
and seventh books offer a faithful portrait of the true Gnostic; he 
is the personification of all Christian perfection. Clement excuses 
the lack of order and unity in the Stromata and accounts for it by 
recalling to the attention of the reader the peculiar purpose of the 
work 3 . In the preface of the fourth book he confesses that he had 
hoped to finish the subject in one book, but the abundance of material 
was so great (TLO Tr/^tisc TCOV Trpa^fjtdrco^) that he was carried far 
beyond his original plan 4 ; yet at the end of the seventh book he 
has not mastered it, and feels bound to promise other books 5 ; he 
seems, indeed, to have written an eighth book 6 . The above-mentioned 
manuscript offers an eighth book, but it is only a small tractate, 
mutilated at beginning and end, on the strictly logical process to be 
followed in the search for truth. Then follow excerpts from the 
writings of Theodotus and other disciples of the Oriental school of 
Valentine, usually known as Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti (25, 5), 
also selected passages from the Prophets, known as Ex scripturis pro- 
pheticis eclogae (ex TOJV TcpoipTjTtx&v sx^o^aij. Zahn holds that these 
three fragments are selections from the original contents of the eighth 
book, while von Arnim maintains that they represent rough sketches 

1 Strom., i. 29, 182; iii. 18, 1 10, al. 2 Paed , i. i; Strom., vi. I, I. 

3 i. I, 18; iv. 2, 4, al. 4 iv. I, I. 5 vii. 18, ill. 

6 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, i; Phot., Bibl. Cod. in. 


and preliminary studies of Clement, perhaps for the eighth book of the 
Stromata ; probably, however, for other writings. The Protrepticus may 
have been written before 189, the Paedagogiis about 190, the Stromata 
about 200- -202/203. Many of the numerous authors quoted by Cle 
ment were very probably known to him only through anthologies. 
In the acceptance and use of those Judaistic-Alexandrine forgeries 
which pretend to establish the intellectual priority of the Hebrews as 
compared with the Greeks, he showed himself credulous and uncritical. 
Wendland is of opinion that lengthy passages of the Paedagogus 
and the Stromata were borrowed from the Stoic Musonius, the teacher 
of Epictetus, or at least from the lectures of Musonius as represented 
by the notes of some student of that master. On the other hand 
Arnobius and Theodoret of Cyrus made extensive use of the writings 
of Clement. 

The Protrepticus and the Paedagogus have reached us through the Arethas- 
Codex ( 13) of A. D. 914, and some copies of the same; the Stromata 
through the Cod. Flor. Laurent. V 3 (saec. xi), and a copy of it. On the 
plan and nature of the entire work cf. Overbeck, in Histor. Zeitschr., new 
series (1882), xii. 454 ff. D. Dragomeros , KA^JXSVTOC AXsavopu> 6 7:90- 
Tpsmxo? irpoc f EXXT)va; 7,070;, Bucarest, 1890. O.Staehlin, Clemens Alexandri- 
nus, i; Protrepticus und Paedagogus (Die griechischen christlichen Schrift- 
steller), Leipzig, 1905. . Taverni, Sopra il -aioVfor/o; di Tito Flavio Cle- 
mente Alessandrino, Rome, 1885. 

For a German version of the Protrepticus and Paedagogus cf. L. Hopfen- 
muller and J. Wimnier, Kempten, 1875 (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater). The 
first of the two Hymns at the end of the Paedagogus was published in a 
carefully revised text by W. Christ and M. Paranikas , Anthologia graeca 
carminum christianorum , Leipzig, 1871, pp. 37 ff. ; cf. xvm ft". For the 
chronological chapter in the Stromata (i. 21, 101 147) cf. the classical 
recension of P. de Lagarde, in Abhandlungen der k. Gesellsch. der Wissen- 
schaften in Gottingen (1891), xxxvii. 73 ff. V. Hozakowski , De chrono- 
graphia dementis Alexandrini (Dissert, inaug.), Minister, 1896 (see n. 9). 
On the eighth book of the Stromata (Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae pro- 
pheticae) cf. Zahn , Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons 
(1884), iii. 104 130; P. Ruben, Clementis Alexandrini excerpta ex Theo 
doto (Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1892; J. von Arnim, De octavo Clementis 
Stromatorum libro (Progr.), Rostock, 1894; O. Clausen, Zur Stromateis 
des Clemens Alex, und ihrem Verhaltnis zum Protrepticos und Paedagogos, 
in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 465- 512. There is an 
English translation , by W. Wilson , of the writings of Clement in Ante- 
Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ii. 171 604. The hymns are translated by 
W. Alexander. F. J. A. Hort and J. B. Mayor , Clement of Alexandria, 
Miscellanies, book 7, Greek text with introduction, translation, notes, 
dissertations, and indices, London, 1903; J. Bernays , Zu Aristoteles und 
Clemens, 1864, reprinted in Gesammelte Abhandlungen von J. B., heraus- 
gegeben von H. Usener, Berlin, 1885, i. 151 164; P. Wendland, Quae- 
stiones Musonianae. De Musonio stoico Clementis Alexandrini aliorumque 
auctore, Berlin, 1886; Id., in Beitrage zur Gesch. der griech. Philosophic 
und Religion von P. W. und O. Kern, Berlin, 1895, PP- 68 ff ; ^-* Phil 
und Clemens Alexandrinus, in Hermes (1896), xxxi. 435 456; Ad. Scheck, 
De fontibus Clementis Alexandrini (Progr.), Augsburg, 1889; W. Christ, 


Philologische Sttidien zu Clemens Alexandrinus, Miinchen, 1900 (Abhand- 
lungen der kgl. bayr. Akad. der Wissensch.) ; H. Jackson, Notes on Cle 
ment of Alexandria (Stromata), in Journal of philology (1902), xxvii. 

I3 1 135- 

A. Rohricht, De Clemente Alexandrino Arnobii in irridendo gentilium 
cultu deorum auctore (Progr.), Hamburg, 1893. C. Roos, De Theodoreto 
dementis et Eusebii compilatore (Dissert, inaug.), Halle, 1883. F. Schwartz, 
Zu Clemens Tfe 6 tJci>C6fievoc rXoujio;, in Hermes (1903), xxxviii. 75 100. 

4. IIYPOTYPOSES. The work entitled oTioror.coaetc (outlines, sketches) 
contained in eight books a brief commentary on the Scriptures, 
including the Letter of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. It 
was interspersed with excursus of a dogmatic or historical nature 1 . 
There are some Greek fragments of it in Eusebius, Photius, Oecumenius, 
and others, also in the so-called Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini 
in epistulas canonicas. This latter text is a Latin version of the 
commentary of Clement on the First Epistle of Peter, the Epistle 
of Jude, First and Second of John, made by order of Cassiodorus 
and cleansed of dogmatically offensive passages. 

Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, iii. 64 103 
130 156; Prenschen (see n. 2), pp. 306 f. ; collated with a later codex Zahris 
edition of the Adumbrationes (1. c., pp. 79 93); G. Mercati, i: Un fram- 
mento delle ipotiposi di Clemente Alessandrino ; ii: Paralipomena ambro- 
siana, con alcuni appunti sulle benedizioni del cereo pasquale, in Studi e 
Testi, Rome, 1904, n. 10. 

5. QUIS DIVES SALVETUR. This little work (Who is the rich man 
that is saved?: TIQ o (T(oC6fj.evoQ TtAotimog), highly prized even in anti 
quity, is a Homily on Mk. x. 17 31. The Lord, says Clement, does 
not intend to exclude any rich man from the kingdom of heaven; 
he only commands us to mortify in spirit our attachment to the goods 
of this earth and to make good use of our possessions 2 . It must have 
been written shortly after the publication of the Stromata 3 . 

The editio princeps is that of M. Ghisler , Leyden, 1623; recent se 
parate editions are owing to W. Br. Lindner, Leipzig, 1861; K. Rosier, 
Freiburg, 1893 (Sammlung ausgew. kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellen- 
schriften, vi) ; P. M. Barnard, Cambridge, 1897 (Texts and Studies, v. 2). 
Former editions were based on a Codex Vatican, (saec. xv); but Barnard 
discovered the archetype of this manuscript in Codex Scorial. (saec. xi). 
A German version of the Homily was made by L. Hopfenmilller, Kempten, 
1875 (Bibl- der Kirchenvater). It was translated into English by P. M. 
Barnard, London, 1900. 

Clement had intended to write special works on various themes; we 
do not know that he was able to execute them. Thus it was his 
purpose to write on the resurrection: Trepl dvaardaetoQ^; on prophecy: 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, 2; 14, i; Phot., Bibl. Cod. 109. 

2 Cf. Paed., ii. 3; iii. 6. 3 Cf. c. 26 and Strom., iv. i, 23. 
4 Paed., i. 6, 47; ii. 10, 104. 


i npo<f>7)Tiaq, in defence of the inspiration of the biblical books 
and in opposition to Montanism 1 ; on the soul: nep} ^oyj/Q, against 
Basilidians and Marcionites 2 ; perhaps on Genesis, or the Creation: 
SIQ ryy fivzoiv^. In the Paedagogus^ he refers to a former work on 
continence: xspl efxpaTeiaQ; in the Quis Dives (c. 26) to his dis 
cussion on First Principles and on Theology (dpywv xai fteoXoyiac, 
ssy-fYjatQj. Wendland holds that in the first passage Clement has 
merely copied, and rather carelessly, the title of a work of the 
Stoic Musonius. It is true, however, that he announced in the 
Stromata 5 a work on the dpyai and on fteoXoyia. Eusebius mentions 
four other works 6 : a) on Easter (nepi TOO Tidaya), occasioned by the 
homonymous work of Melito of Sardes and directed against the 
Quartodecimans of Asia Minor 7 ; b) an Ecclesiastical Canon, against 
Judaizers: xavcoy, y rrpoQ robq loudatovra& ; c) Homilies 
on fasting and on calumny: diaMzstQ Kepi vqarsiaq xat irepl xara- 
; d) an Exhortation to perseverance, or to the newly baptized: 

O TrpOTpSTTTtXOQ TtpOQ JTtOfJLOyqV fj TZpOQ TOUQ VSOiffTt ftsftaTZTCff/llvOUC; 10 . 

Some texts of the first two are found in later writers. Barnard believ 
ed (1897) that he had discovered a fragment of the fourth. - 
Palladius is the first to make mention 11 of a work on the prophet 
Amos: slg rov Tcpopynqv dfjtatQ. A work on Providence: xspl Ttpo- 
voiac, is first mentioned by Maximus Confessor, Anastasius Sinaita, 
and later writers. 

Zahn, ]. c. ; pp. 32 64; Preuschen, 1. c., pp. 299 301 308 311 316; 
Barnard, Clement of Alex., Quis dives salvetur, pp. 47 52. 

7. DOCTRINE OF CLEMENT. From the initial words of the Stromata 
(i. I, ii 14) one might be tempted to believe that the whole work was 
nothing more than a written elaboration of the teaching that in former 
years Clement had heard from his instructors, and especially from Pan- 
tsenus. It is very probable, however, that such words are only an 
exaggerated expression of his own modesty and of veneration for his 
earlier masters. Clement is frequently in conflict with ecclesiastical 
tradition, with which he undertakes to combine elements that are 
foreign to it. From Greek philosophy he borrows some far-reaching 
principles, first from the Stoics, and then from Plato, frequently 
through Philo/ He is of opinion that philosophy, though its elements 
of truth are drawn from the Old Testament, should occupy an im 
portant role in the divine plan of redemption. As the Jews were 

1 Strom., i. 24, 158; iv. I, 2, al. 2 Ib., ii. 20, 113; iii. 3, 13, al. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, 8; cf. Strom., iii. 14, 95; vi. 18, 168. 

4 ii. 10, 94; cf. ii. 6, 52; iii. 8, 41. 5 iv. i, 2 3; cf. iii. 3, 13, al. 

6 Cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. 38. 

7 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 26, 4; vi. 13, 39. 8 Ib., vi. 13, 3. 
9 Ib. 10 Ib. ll Hist. Lausiaca, c. 139. 


led to Christ through the Law, so should the Gentiles come to Him 
through philosophy: iTiaidafwyzi yap xat atiry (q <pdoao<pia) TO E/J^- 
MXOV, we (> wpoz TOUQ EftpaiouQ s?c Xpurctw 1 . Only by means of philo 
sophy can the Christian advance from faith to knowledge, from 7ri<mc 
to fvajaiQ. Faith is, so to speak, a concise knowledge of what is 
necessary: ffwro/jio^ TCOV xaTSxetfovTcov fvojm<;, while science is a strong 
and assured demonstration of those truths that have been accepted 
by faith: dnodet&q TCOV oca TicffTsojQ napetty/jifjieMov layupb. xat filftatoQ 2 . 
To acquire knowledge without philosophy is like hoping to harvest 
grapes without caring for the vines 3 . How far Clement, under the 
guidance of philosophy, had fallen away from ecclesiastical doctrine, 
may be gathered from the severe judgment ofPhotius 4 on \htHypo- 
ty poses ( 38, 4), a work in which Clement seems to have plunged 
more deeply into speculation than in any of his extant writings. 
-In some places, says Photius, he holds firmly to the correct doc 
trine ; elsewhere he is carried away by strange and impious notions. 
He asserts the eternity of matter, excogitates a theory of ideas from 
the words of Holy Scripture, and reduces the Son to a mere crea 
ture. He relates fabulous stories of a metempsychosis and of many 
worlds before Adam. Concerning the formation of Eve from Adam 
he teaches things blasphemous and scurrilous , and anti-scriptural. 
He imagines that the angels held intercourse with women and begot 
children from them , also that the Logos did not become man in 
reality but only in appearance. It even seerns that he has a fabulous 
notion of two Logoi of the Father, of which the inferior one appeared 
to men; indeed, not even this one. 

V. Hebert-Duperron, Essai sur la polemique et la philosophic de Clement 
d Alexandrie, Paris, 1855. J. Cognat , Clement d Alexandrie, sa doctrine 
et sa polemique, Paris, 1859. H. Preische, De -yvcosst dementis Alexandrini 
(Dissert, inaug.), Jena, 1871. Knittel , Pistis und Gnosis bei Clemens von 
Alexandrien, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1873), Iv. 171 219 363 417. C. 
Merk, Clemens Alexandrinus in seiner Abhangigkeit von der griechischen 
Philosophic (Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1879. ^- de Faye, Clement d Alex 
andrie , Etude sur les rapports du Christianisme et de la philosophic 
grecque an 2 e siecle, Paris, 1898. H. Laemmer, dementis Alexandrini de 
Xo^to doctrina, Leipzig, 1855. G. T/i. Hitten, dementis Alex, de SS. Eucha- 
ristia doctrina (Dissert, inaug.), Warendorp, 1861. G. Anrich , Clemens 
und Origenes als Begriinder der Lehre vom Fegfeuer (in Abhandlungen 
fur H. J. Holtzmann), Tubingen, 1902. P. Ziegert , Zwei Abhandlungen 
iber T. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus. Psychologic und Logoschristologie, 
Heidelberg, 1894. V. Pascal, La foi et la raison dans Clement d Alexandrie, 
Montdidier, 1901. Funk, Clemens von Alexandrien liber Familie und 
Eigentum, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1871), liii. 427449, and in Kirchen- 
geschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 45 60. Fr. J, 
Winter , Die Ethik des Clemens von Alexandrien, in Studien zur Gesch. 

1 Strom., i. 5, 28; cf. vi. 17, 159. Cf. Gal. iii. 24. 

2 Strom., vii. io ; 57. 3 Ib., i. 9, 43- * Bibl. Cod. 109. 


der christl. Ethik , i, Leipzig, 1882. G. Basilakes , KXiqjAsvro? rou AXs;- 
ocvopsoK ~<] y;ihxrj SiSajxaXta (Dissert, inaug.) , Erlangen, 1892. A . Ernesti, 
Die Ethik des Titus Flavins Clemens von Alexandrien oder die erste zu- 
sammenhangende Begriindung der christlichen Sittenlehre, Paderborn, 1900. 
Markgraf , Clemens von Alexandrien als asketischer Schriftsteller in seiner 
Stellung zu den natiirlichen Lebensgiitern , in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. 
(1901 1902), xxii. 485 515. N. Capitaine, Die Moral des Clemens von 
Alexandrien, Paderborn, 1903. W. Wagner, Der Christ und die Welt nach 
Clemens von Alexandrien, ein noch unveraltetes Problem in altchristlicher 
Beleuchtung, Gottingen, 1903. H. Eickhoff , Das Neue Testament des 
Clemens Alexandrinus (Progr.), Schleswig, 1890. P. Dausch, Der neutesta- 
mentliche Schriftkanon und Clemens von Alexandrien, Freiburg, 1894. 
H. Kutter, Clemens Alexandrinus und das Neue Testament, Gieften, 1897. 
P. M. Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four 
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge, 1899 (Texts and Studies, 
v. 5). O. Staehlin , Clemens Alexandrinus und die Septuaginta (Progr.), 
Niirnberg, 1901. Bratke , Die Stellung des Clemens Alexandrinus zum 
antiken Mysterienwesen , in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, (1887), Ix. 647 
to 708, and P. Ziegert , ib. (1894), Ixvii. 706 732. W. Wagner., Wert 
und Verwertung der griechischen Bildung im Urteil des Clemens von 
Alexandrien, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 213 262. 
V. KranicJi, Qua via ac ration e Clemens Alex, ethnicos ad religionem chri- 
stianam adducere studuerit, Braunsberg, 1903. 

8. PANT.ENUS. He was born in Sicily according to Clement (Strom., 
i. i, n), became a Christian missionary in the East (India and Arabia), 
and was for many years president of the catechetical school of Alexandria 
(Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 10). He died shortly before 200, and left no writings 
(Clem., Strom., i. i, 1114; Eclog. 27). It is very probable that the as 
sertion of Eusebius (Hist, eccl., v. 10, 4), that Pantaenus had left books of 
his own composition (suyypajjifjiaTa), and similar statements in more recent 
writers (Maximus Confessor, Anastasius Sinaita) are only a hasty inference 
from the fact that Clement often quotes expressions from Pantasnus. Jerome 
attributes to him many Commentaries on Scripture, but he is doubtless 
re-iterating Eusebius (cf. De viris illustr., c. 36; Ep. 70, 4). The < .testimonia 
of the ancients concerning Pantaenus are met with in Routh , Reliquiae 
sacrae, i. 373 383, and are reprinted in Migne, PG. , v. 1327 1332, 
more fully in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 291 296; cf. 
particularly Zahn, Forschungen, iii. 156 176. 

9. JUDAS. A certain Judas, otherwise unknown, probably an Alexan 
drine from what Eusebius says (Hist, eccl., vi. 7 ; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., 
c. 52), wrote a work on the seventy weeks of Daniel: si? ra; ~apa no AavifjX 
spoojAaoac, in which he presented chronological reckonings as far as the 
tenth year of the reign of Septimius Severus (203) and announced the 
coming of Antichrist as imminent. Similar prophecies were made during 
the persecution of Septimius Severus (cf. Hipp., Comm. in Dan., iv. 18 19). 
We only need mention the quite unsuccessful attempt ofSchlatter who under 
took to find in Clement (Strom., i. 21, 147) and in other writers traces of 
a Christian chronography made in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (148). 
He hoped, by rejection of the dates of Eusebius, to identify this chrono 
graphy with the above-mentioned work of Judas. A. Schlatter, Der Chrono 
graph aus dem zehnten Jahre Antonins (Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. i), 
Leipzig, 1894. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 327 755 f . ; 
ii. i, 225 flf. 406 ff. 


39. Origen. 

I . HIS LIFE AND WORKS. In the sixth book of his Church History, 
Eusebius relates at length the life and labors of Origen; of the great 
Apology for Origen composed in common by Eusebius and Pam- 
philus, we possess but a few small remnants. Similarly, the correspon 
dence of the great theologian has perished, with the exception of a 
few pieces. He was born of Christian parents in 185 or 186, appa 
rently at Alexandria. Probably it was only at a later period that 
the soubriquet Adamantius (?Adajy.dvTtO = Man of steel) was applied 
to him 1 . He owed his first training to his father Leonides, parti 
cularly an excellent religious formation 2 . At an early age he fre 
quented the catechetical school of Alexandria, where he profited by 
the teaching of Clement 3 . Leonides suffered martyrdom in the per 
secution of Septirnius Severus, 202 or 203 ; the ardent desire of Origen 
to share his father s fate was frustrated only by his mother s ingenuity*. 
Having lost its patrimony by confiscation, the family, a large one, 
was reduced to poverty. In the meantime Origen had attracted 
the attention of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, and in 203, when 
scarcely eighteen years of age, was called to the head-mastership of 
the catechetical school, as successor to Clement 5 . Until 215 or 216 
he worked on at this calling, a tireless and influential man. So far 
as we know his teaching was at this time uninterrupted, save for a 
short time by journeys to Rome and to Arabia 6 . It was during these 
years that ascetic zeal, roused by meditation on Mt. xix, 12, moved 
him to emasculate himself 7 . To gain leisure for his own studies he 
took in as an associate teacher his former disciple Heraclas. He retain 
ed, however, the direction of the more advanced pupils 8 . Origen 
had probably reached his twenty-fifth year when he began to attend 
the lectures of Ammonius Saccas, the famous founder of Neoplatonism 9 ; 
at the same time his zeal for biblical studies urged him to acquire a 
knowledge of Hebrew 10 . To this period also belong his first writings. 
The Alexandrine massacre perpetrated by Caracalla in 215 or 216, 
was the cause of Origen s flight to Palestine. Here Alexander, bishop 
of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, bishop of Csesarea, received him most 
honourably, and, though he was yet a layman, induced him to preach 
in their churches. Demetrius of Alexandria was dissatisfied with their 
conduct, and requested Origen to return without delay. The latter 
obeyed and once more took up his calling as teacher and writer 11 . 
Seven skilled amanuenses were placed at his disposal by Ambrose, 
a former disciple; they relieved one another in taking down the 

1 Pamphilus-Etts , in Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118; Iher., Ep. 33, 3. 

- E^is., Hist, eccl., vi. 2, 7. 3 Ib., vi. 6. 4 Ib., vi. 2, 5. 

5 Ib., vi. 3, 3. 6 Ib., vi. 14, 10; 19, 15. 7 Ib., vi. 8. 8 Ib., vi. 15. 

9 Ib., vi. 19. 10 Ib., vi. 1 6, I. n Ib., vi. 19, 19. 

39- ORIGEN. 137 

master s dictation. As many copyists and some female calligraphers 
were also occupied in his service, - - in a way this corps did duty as 
an Alexandrine press for the publication of his works 1 . About 230 he 
undertook, with a written recommendation from Demetrius 2 , a journey 
to Athens in order to confer with certain heretics; on the way he 
stopped at Csesarea in Palestine, where he was ordained priest 3 by his 
friends Alexander and Theoctistus; this without the knowledge of his 
bishop and in spite of his act of self-emasculation, for which step, 
on his return, Demetrius called him to account. He was deposed 
from his office as head-master by two synods held at Alexandria 
(231 232), because of his irregular ordination and his unecclesiastical 
teaching; he was also expelled from the city and degraded from the 
priesthood 4 . Shortly afterwards Demetrius died and Heraclas was 
chosen his successor, whereupon Origen returned to Alexandria, only 
to be again condemned and excommunicated by Heraclas for un 
ecclesiastical teaching 5 . He now took up his permanent residence at 
Csesarea, and established there a theological school that soon reached 
a high degree of efficiency 6 . One of its pupils, St. Gregory Thaumat- 
urgus, has left us an interesting account of the method of instruction 
and the course of studies carried on by Origen at Caesarea 7 . With 
the exception of a few journeys to Athens 8 and Arabia 9 , in the 
service of the Church, he seems to have lived on in Csesarea, con 
stantly busy as teacher, writer and preacher, to the time of the 
Decian persecution. During that storm he was cast into prison, pro 
bably at Tyre, and underwent many tortures 10 . Not long after he 
died at Tyre 11 , in 254 or 255, having completed his sixty-ninth 
year 12 . 

P. D. Huetius , Origenis in S. Scripturas commentaria, Rouen, 1668, 
i. i 278: Origeniana (on the life, doctrine, and writings of Origen, three 
books), often reprinted, cf. Migne , PG., xvii. 6331284. E. R. Rede- 
penning, Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre, Bonn, 
1841 1846, 2 voll. E. Freppel, Origene, Paris, 1868. 2 voll. , 2. ed. 
l8 75; 3- ed. 1886. Fr. Bohringer , Die griechischen Vater des 3. und 
4. Jahrhunderts. i: Klemens und Origenes (Die Kirche Christi und ihre 
Zeugen, i. 2, i) 2. ed. Zurich, 1869. B. F. Westcott, Origenes, in Dictio 
nary of Christ. Biogr. (1887), iv. 96142. For Origen and Heraclas cf. 
J. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, Ratisbon, 1853, 261 ff. Preuschen, 
Bibelzitate bei Origenes, in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. 
(1903), iv. 79 87. F. A. Winter, Uber den Wert der direkten und in- 
direkten Uberlieferung von Origenes Biichern Contra Celsum (Progr.), 
Burghausen, 1903, i. D. Genet , L enseignement d Origene sur la priere, 
Cahors (1903). 

1 Ib., vi. 23, 2. 2 Hier., De viris illustr., cc. 54 62. 

a Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 8, 4. 4 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118. 

5 Phot., Collect, et demonstr., c. 9. 6 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 30. 

7 Paneg. in Orig. cc. 7 15. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 2. 

9 Ib., vi. 33, 37. 10 Ib., vi. 39, 5. 11 Ib., vii. i. 

12 Hier., De viris illustr., c. 54. 


2. THE WORKS OF ORIGEN. The story told to Epiphanius 1 about 
the 6000 books (ftiflJiouQj written by Origen was surely an exaggeration. 
The catalogue of his works given by Eusebius in his lost life of 
St. Pamphilus 2 , did not contain, if \ve believe St. Jerome 3 , 2000 titles, 
and the catalogue made by Jerome himself 4 , most probably from 
that of Eusebius, does not mention in its actual shape more than 
800 titles; it is, however, very defective, and perhaps does not ex 
hibit a continuous text. It is certain that no ecclesiastical writer 
of the Ante-Nicene period equalled Origen in literary productivity. 
We possess to-day but a small remnant of his works; and of these 
fully one half have reached us, not in the original Greek, but in 
Latin versions. Eminent writers like Jerome and Rufinus were his 
translators, while Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus co-operated 
in producing an elegant florilegium of his works known as the Philo- 
calia or ( Qprfivou^ <pdo%a)da). Whole classes of his writings perished 
as the result of the inimical edict of Justinian (543), the adverse 
judgment of the Fifth General Council (553)> anc ^ the attitude of the 
so-called Gelasian Decretal de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. 
Origen cultivated with special zeal the field of biblical text-criticism 
and exegesis; he wrote commentaries, not once, but often and in 
various forms, on the greater part of the Scriptures. At the same 
time he wrote a series of apologetic, polemical, dogmatic and asceti- 
cal works - - in a word, he outlined the entire field of theology. 
He was the first to construct a philosophico-theological system, at once 
uniform and comprehensive. All the theological movements and 
schools belonging to the patristic period of the Greek Church are 
grouped about Origen as about a common centre of union or diver 
gency. He does not belong to the first rank of stylists, being not 
only very prolix in the treatment of his subject, but also diffuse 
and pedantic in expression; defects that are probably owing 
to his uninterrupted oral teaching. Many of his writings were not 
genuine literary labors, but ephemeral performances, dictations 5 , or 
oral discourses copied by his hearers 6 . 

Preuschen , in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 332 405. The 
existing editions of St. Jerome s works give Ep. 33, only in fragmentary 
form (cf. Migne, PL., xxii. 446 ff.). The catalogues of the works of Varro 
and Origen were first published by Fr. Ritschl in 1848, and again in 1849. 
It is on his labors that the attempts of Redepenning and Pitra to re 
construct Ep. 33 Jerome are based. For Redepenning , see Zeitschr. fur 
die histor. Theol. (1851), xxi. 66 79, and for Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. (1855), 
iii. 311 317. With the help of new codices E. Klostermann, in Sitzungs- 
berichte der k. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch. , Berlin 1897, pp. 855 870, 
undertook to reconstruct the catalogue of the works of Origen. The Greek 
text of the Philocalia Origenis of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus 

1 Haer. 64, 63. 2 EMS., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 3. 3 Adv. Rufin., ii. 22. 

4 Ep. 33. 5 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 23, 2. 6 Ib., vi. 36, i. 

39- ORIGEN. 139 

was first edited by y. Tarinus, Paris, 1619, and recently by y. A. Robinson, 
Cambridge, 1893. It is also to be found in the editions of Origen (e. g. 
in Migne , PG., xiv. 13091316). The first complete editions of Origen, 
those of y. Merlin, Paris, 1512, and G. Genebrard, Paris, 1574, both of 
which have often been reprinted, furnish only a Latin version, even for 
those writings the Greek text of which has reached us. The Maurist sa 
vants, Charles de la Rue and his nephew Charles Vincent de la Rue, were 
the first to bring out a complete edition of Origen, with the exception of 
the fragments of the Hexapla, Paris, 1733 1759, 4 voll. It was reproduced 
in abbreviated form by Fr. Oberthilr, Wiirzburg, 1780 1794, 15 voll. The 
edition of C. H. E. Lommatzsch , Berlin 1831 1848, 25 voll., is a much 
more original and complete work. The Maurist edition, with numerous 
additions (Hexapla, Philosophumena, Supplementum ad Origenis Exegetica) 
is reprinted in Migne, PG., xi xvii. A new edition of the works of 
Origen is now appearing in the Berlin Collection of early ecclesiastical 
Greek writers: Origenes Werke i ii, herausgegeben von P. Koetschau, 
Leipzig, 1899. Cf. Koetschau, Kritische Bemerkungen zu meiner Ausgabe 
von Origenes Exhortatio, Contra Celsum, De oratione, Leipzig, 1899, 
also Koetschau, in Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol. (1900), xliii. 321 377; 
vol. iii., edited by E. Klostermann, contains the homilies on the Prophecy 
of Jeremiah, the commentaries on the Lamentations, and the exposition 
of the Book of Kings, Berlin, 1901 ; vol. iv. Origenes Johannes-Kommentar, 
edited by E. Prenschen, Berlin, 1903. 

3. CRITICAL WORKS ON THE BIBLE. In the gigantic enterprise 
known as the Hexapla, now lost, Origen set himself the task of 
making clear at a glance the relation of the Septuagint to the original 
Hebrew text; he thereby hoped to establish a solid foundation for 
his theological interpretation of Scripture, and particularly for his 
polemic against the Jews 1 . For this purpose he copied in parallel 
columns, first the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, then the Hebrew 
text in Greek letters. Then followed in four other columns the 
Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theo- 
dotion. In the text of the Septuagint he marked with an obelus or 
cancel the words, verses or chapters that were lacking in the original 
Hebrew. The < lacunae or gaps in the Septuagint text which were 
indicated by an asterisk were filled up from one of the other versions, 
mostly from Theodotion s. For some books of the Old Testament 
he added a fifth version, and for the Psalms a fifth, sixth and seventh 2 . 
From its six columns the work was known as Hexapla (kqanXa, sc 
fpdp.p.ara) or six-fold writing. This great enterprise, begun at Alex 
andria, is said to have been finished at Tyre; therefore, towards the 
end of his life 3 . Very probably no second copy was ever made 
of the entire work. The fifth column (Hexaplar recension of the 
Septuagint) was often copied, and we still possess some fragments 
of its Greek text. The greater part of it has also reached us in a 
Syriac version, slavishly literal, made in 616 or 617, by Paul, bishop 

1 Orig., Comm. in Matth., xv. 14. 

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 16; Hicr., Comm. in Titum ad iii. 9. 

3 Epiph., De mens. et pond., c. 18. 


of Telia. Origen prepared also a work known as the Tetrapla *, 
a collation of the four principal Greek versions of the Old Testa 
ment, those namely of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and 
Theodotion. It has utterly perished. There is no foundation for the 
opinion of Hug that Origen undertook a revision or recension of the 
text of the New Testament. 

The fragments of the Hexapla were collected by B. de Montfaucon, 
Paris, 1713, 2 voll. (cf. Migne, PG., xv xvi) and Fr. Field, Oxford, 1867 
to 1875, 2 voll. More important than the appendices of J. B. Pitra (1884) 
and . Klostermami (1894) is the yet unpublished discovery by G. Mercati 
of a Hexapla fragment of the Psalms. G. Mercati, Un palinsesto ambro- 
siano dei Salmi Esapli, Turin, 1896, in Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze 
di Torino. The same writer has also made important contributions to the 
history and text of the Hexapla, in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana 
antica (Studi e Testi v), Rome, 1901, i (pp. i 7): Una congettura sopra 
il libro del Giusto ; ii (pp. 8 16): Sul testo ebraico del Salmo 140 (141); 
iii (pp. 17 27): Sul canone biblico di S. Epifanio; iv (pp. 2846): D alcuni 
frammenti esaplari sulla v a e vi a edizione greca della Bibbia (there is laid 
claim, for the Hexapla, by interior and exterior reasons, to some few lines 
of this iv. part ; they are entitled zspl TTJ? e xal r Ixooaewc aAXaK : Migne, 
PG., Ixxxiv. 29); v (pp. 47 60): Sul testo et sul senso di Eusebio, Hist, 
eccl., vi. 1 6. J. Hallvy, L origine de la transcription du texte hebreu en 
caracteres grecs dans les Hexaples d Origene, in Journal asiatique, ser. ix 
(1901), xviii. 335 341. Hale vy was opposed by J. B. Chabot, ib. 349 350; 
and replied ib. (1902), xix. 134 136 140 144; C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek 
Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter collection, including a 
fragment of the 22. Psalm according to Origen s Hexapla, Cambridge, 1901. 
The Syriac version is of very great importance for the reconstruction of the 
Hexaplar text of the Septuagint ; the second half of a complete copy of that 
version was published in photolithograph by A. M. Ceriani (Monum. sacra et 
prof. ex. codd. praes. bibl. Ambrosianae, Milan, 1874, vii.); the other extant 
fragments were published by P. de Lagarde, Bibl. Syriaca, Gottingen, 1892, 
pp. i 256. In general, for the history of the Hexapla, see the intro 
ductions to the Old Testament. The theory of Hug is refuted by Hund- 
hausen, in Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, 2. ed., ii. (1883), 700. 

4. BIBLICO-EXEGETICAL WRITINGS. His exegetical writings may 
be divided into three groups: scholia, homilies and commentaries. 
The scholia (a%bha. or ay/jtstaHretQJ, called excerpta by Jerome and 
Rufinus, are brief notes on the more difficult passages or the more 
obscure words. The homilies (ofidiat, homiliae, tractatus), are ser 
mons on select chapters of the Bible. The commentaries (TU/JLOI, volu- 
mina, libri) are detailed and often exhaustive studies, illustrative of 
the biblical text. Unlike the more popular homilies, they contain 
philosophico-theological disquisitions, by means of which the more 
intelligent readers may discover the deeper truths of Scripture 2 . Origen 
wrote scholia on Exodus and Leviticus 3 , also on Numbers 4 . Some 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 16, 44; Epiph., De mens. et pond., c. 19. 

2 Hier., Interpr. horn. Grig, in Ezech., prol. 3 Cf. Catal. in Hier. Ep. 33. 
4 Rufin., Interpr. horn. Grig, in Num., prol. 

39- ORIGEN. 141 

fragments of these may yet be discovered in the Catenae. Some 
fragments of the scholia on Exodus are met with in the Philocalia 
(c. 27) !. His scholia on Numbers were, partially at least, included 
by Rufinus in his translation of the homilies of Origen on Numbers 2 . 
Origen also wrote homilies on all the books of the Pentateuch 3 , 
after 244 on the first four books, on Deuteronomy about 233. Of 
their Greek text only fragments remain 4 , though they might be 
considerably increased by a more careful search in the Catenae. In 
the meantime there are extant in the version or paraphrase of Ru 
finus seventeen homilies on Genesis 5 , thirteen on Exodus 6 , sixteen on 
Leviticus 7 , twenty-eight on Numbers 8 . It was also the intention of 
Rufinus to translate those on Deuteronomy, of which the catalogue 
numbers thirteen 9 . Beside the seventeen homilies on Genesis the 
catalogue of his works mentions mysticarum homiliamm libros 2, 
which also dealt with Genesis 10 , but of which \ve have no more 
exact knowledge. It is possible that the homily on Melchisedech 
quoted by Jerome n was one of them. Finally he composed a com 
mentary on Genesis, probably in thirteen books, the first eight of 
which were written at Alexandria, the others at Csesarea 12 . He did 
not get beyond Gen. v. I 13 . Only a few fragments of it are extant 14 , 
mostly citations in the Philocalia (c. 14 23) from the third book. 
It seems that on the historical books of the Old Testament Origen 
delivered or wrote only homilies. Rufinus translated 15 twenty-six 
homilies on Josue that \vere probably delivered during the persecution 
of Decius 16 . A Greek fragment of the twentieth homily is found in 
the Philocalia (c. 12); in 1894, Klostermann discovered notable re 
mnants of the first four and the last eleven in the Octateuch-Catena 
of the sophist Procopius of Gaza. There exists a Latin version 
made by Rufinus 17 of nine homilies on Judges 18 mentioned about 
235 by Origen himself. Between these nine and the four on the 
first book of Kings the Catalogue places eight homilies De pascha, 
a title that seems enigmatic if only by reason of its position. Two 
homilies on the first book of Kings have been preserved, one on 
I Kings i. ii., in a Latin version of unknown origin 19 , the other 
in the original Greek, on I Kings xxviii., or concerning the witch 
of Endor (nepl TYJQ IfraffTptfjtuftoui) 20 . Cassiodorus mentions 21 a homily 

1 Migne, PG., xii. 263 282. 2 Rufin., 1. c. 

3 Orig., Horn. 8 in Luc. 4 Migne, PG., xii. 161 168 353 354, al. 

5 Ib., xii. 145162. 6 lb,, xii. 297396. 

7 Ib., xii. 405 574. 8 Ib., xii. 583-806. Rufin., 1. c. 

10 Rufin,, Apol., ii. 20. u Ep. 73, 2. 12 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2. 

13 Orig., Contra Gels., vi. 49; cf. Hier., Ep. 36, 9. 

14 Migne, PG., xii. 4592. 15 Ib., xii. 823948. 

16 Horn, in los., ix. 10. 17 Migne, PG., xii. 951 990. 

18 Orig., Prolog, in Cant., in Migne, PG., xiii. 78. 19 Ib., xii. 9951012. 

20 Ib., xii. 1011 1028. 2I Inst., i. 2. 


on 2 Kings, one on the second book of Paralipomenon 1 , a homily 
respectively on the first and second book of Esdras; all translated 2 
by his friend Bellator. The twenty-two homilies on Job found a 
Latin epitomator in Hilary of Poitiers 3 , but of this epitome only 
two small fragments remain 4 , and remnants of the Greek text seem 
to be still found in the Catenae. - - Origen treated the Psalms in 
all three of the above-mentioned ways 5 . The Catalogue mentions 
scholia on Psalms I 15, and on the whole Psalter, also homilies 
on various Psalms. In all he wrote 120 homilies on 63 Psalms. He 
also wrote forty-six books of commentaries on forty-one Psalms. 
Elsewhere Jerome speaks 6 of a commentary on Ps. 126, and a 
tractatus Phe liter ae , probably an explanation of the verses of 
Psalm 118 that began with the Hebrew letter D. Eusebius mentions 
an explanation of Psalms I 25 written when Origen was still resi 
dent in Alexandria 7 . Apart from an endless lot of fragments in 
the Catenae there is extant but very little of the Greek text of his 
various writings on the Psalms. There exist, however, in a Latin 
version of Rufinus, nine homilies, five on Psalm 36, two on Psalm 37, 
and two on Psalm 38; they date approximately from 240 245 8 . 
In his own commentary on the Psalms, Hilary of Poitiers made an ex 
tensive use of the labors of Origen 9 . In his above-mentioned Cata 
logue Jerome sets down seven homilies on Proverbs, a commentary 
in three books, a De proverbiorum quibusdam quaestionibus librum I ; 
fragments of which have reached us almost only through the Ca 
tenae. It seems that the scholia and eight homilies on Ecclesiastes 
are altogether lost. An elegant version of St. Jerome 10 has preserved 
the two homilies on the Canticle of canticles. In the Philocalia 
(c. 7, i) has been saved a fragment, taken from some otherwise 
unknown youthful work of Origen on the Canticle of canticles 11 . 
Besides some Greek Catenae-fragments of his commentary on the 
latter book, we possess the prologue, the first three books and a 
part of the fourth , in a Latin version by Rufinus 12 . This com 
mentary was originally in ten books; five of them he wrote at 
Athens about 240, and the others shortly after, at Caesarea 13 . Of 
these commentaries Jerome said 14 : Origenes , cum in celeris libris 
omnes vicerit, in Cantico canticorum ipse se vicit. On the prophet 
Isaias he also wrote scholia, homilies and a commentary 15 . The 
homilies were apparently twenty-five in number 16 ; nine of them 

1 Cass., Inst., i. 2. 2 Ib., i. 6. 

3 Hier., Ep. 61, 2; De viris illust., c. 100. 4 Migne, PL., x. 723 724. 

5 Hier., Comm. in Psalm., prol. G Ep. 34, I. 

7 Eus., Hist, eccl, vi. 24, 2. 8 Migne, PG., xii. 1319 1410. 

u Hier., Ep. 61, 2; De viris illustr., c. 100. 10 Migne, PG., xiii. 3558. 

11 Ib., xiii. 3566. 2 Ib., xiii., 61 198. 

13 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 2. u Interpr. horn. Orig. in Cant., prol. 

15 Hier., Comm. in Is., prol. 1G Ib. 

39- ORIGEX. 143 

have reached us in a Latin translation by Jerome, who purged them 
of heterodox sentiments 1 . The commentary on Isaias was composed 
at Csesarea about 235, and dealt in thirty books with the text to 
Is. xxx. 5 2 . A few small fragments of it are found in the text of 
Pamphilus 3 . Two books on the vision in Isaias xxx. 6 ff. were held 
by Jerome to be spurious 4 . - - An Escurial codex of the twelfth 
century has preserved for us the Greek text of nineteen homilies 
on Jeremias 5 , delivered by Origen after 244; also fourteen, in a 
Latin version by Jerome 6 . Twelve of the Latin homilies (i 24 
8 14 1 6 17) are found also in Greek. The other two (20 21) are 
wanting in the Greek text of the manuscript. Cassiodorus was ac 
quainted with forty-five homilies on Jeremias 7 , and the Philocalia 
contains (cc. I 10) two fragments of the thirty-ninth homily on that 
prophet 8 . - - Origen composed at Alexandria a commentary on the 
Lamentations, five books of which were known to Eusebius 9 . Maxi- 
mus Confessor cites a tenth book of the same 10 , but the only frag 
ments saved are apparently those in the Catenae. Of the homilies 
on Jeremias, delivered after those on Ezechiel ] *, fourteen have reached 
us in a Latin version of Jerome, who removed from them the 
doctrinal errors 12 . Origen also began at Csesarea and finished at 
Athens, about 240, a commentary on Ezechiel in twenty-five books 13 . 
A fragment of the 20. book is met with in the Philocalia (c. n) 14 . 
The ancients say nothing of any work on Daniel. After 244, Origen 
wrote at Csesarea a commentary on the twelve minor prophets, of 
which Eusebius 15 could find only twenty-five books 16 . The Cata 
logue of Origen s works mentions commentaries on all the minor 
prophets, with the exception of Abdias. The only known fragment 
preserved is from the commentary on Osee in Philocalia c. 8 17 . He 
wrote a special opuscule on the pretended mystic sense of the 
word Ephraim in Osee 18 . The Gospel of St. Matthew was illu 
strated by Origen with scholia, twenty-five homilies and a commen 
tary in twenty-five books 19 . The commentary was composed at Cae- 
sarea 20 after 244. The original Greek is still extant in part (books 10 to 
17, on Mt. xiii. 36 to xxii. 33) 21 . A still larger portion (Mt. xvi. 13 

1 Migne, PG., xiii. 219 254. 2 E^^s., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, i. 

3 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 5 7; Migne, PG., xiii. 217 220. 

4 Hier., Comm. in Is., prol. 5 Migne, PG., xiii. 256 526. 
6 Ib., xiii. 255 542. 7 Inst., i. 3. 

3 Migne, PG., xiii. 541 544. 9 Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2. 

10 Schol. in Dion. Areop., in Migne, PG., iv. 549. 

11 Orig., Horn, in Kzech., xi. 5. 12 Migne, PG., xiii. 665768. 

ia Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 12. u Migne, PG., xiii. 663 666. 

15 Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2. 1G /Her., De viris ill., c. 75. 

17 Migne, PG., xiii. 825 828. l8 Hier., Comm. in Hos., prol. 

19 Hier., Comm. in Matth., prol. 20 Etts., Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2. 

- 1 Migne, PG., xiii. 835 1600. 


to xxvii. 63) exists in an ancient anonymous Latin recension *. 
There are also a few scattered fragments of the commentary on 
St. Matthew 2 . Nothing is known of Origen s labors on St. Mark. 
Jerome translated thirty-nine homilies on St. Luke, that may have 
been delivered shortly after 233 3 . The Catenae have preserved 
numerous fragments of these homilies, that apparently numbered 
more than thirty-nine 4 . He wrote also a commentary on St. Luke 
in five books, but it is lost with the exception of some Catenae- 
fragments 5 . - - For St. John the Catalogue enumerates scholia and 
a commentary in thirty-two books 6 ; of this commentary, besides 
small fragments of various books , the Greek text of the following 
books I 2 6 10 13 19 (incomplete) 20 28 32 has been saved for 
us by a Munich Codex of the twelfth or thirteenth century 7 . The 
first five books were written at Alexandria, it is thought before the 
year 228 8 ; but in the time of the persecution of Maximinus (235 
to 238) the work was still unfinished 9 ; very probably it originally 
consisted of more than thirty-two books 10 . - - Of the seventeen 
homilies on the Acts of the Apostles we know only one fragment 
of the fourth preserved in the Philocalia (c. 7, 2) n . We possess 
the fifteen books of the commentary (written after 244) on the Epistle 
to the Romans, but in a Latin recension in ten books, made by 
Rufinus 12 . His copy of the original Greek of this commentary con 
tained a text both incomplete and corrupt; moreover it was on a 
Latin version of the Epistle to the Romans that Rufinus based his 
exposition. The Catalogue mentions eleven homilies on the Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, but probably we ought to read the First 
Epistle 13 ; there are Catenae -fragments of homilies on the latter. 
On the Epistle to the Galatians he wrote scholia u , seven homilies 
and five books of a commentary ; fragments of the first book of the 
commentary are quoted by Pamphilus 15 . In his commentary on 
this Epistle /St. Jerome follows Origen closely 16 . He made a still 
more copious use of the text of Origen in his commentary on the 
Epistle to the Ephesians 17 . Origen had written a commentary on the 
latter in three books; Greek fragments, of which some are lengthy, 

1 Migne, PG., xiii. 993 1800. 2 Ib., xiii. 829 834. 

3 Ib., xiii. 1799 1902. 

4 Orig., Comm. in Matth., xiii. 29 ; Comm. in Io., xxxii. 2. 

5 Hier., Interpr. horn. Orig. in Luc., prol. -- The Catalogue mentions 15 books. 

6 Hier., Interpr. horn. Orig. in Luc., prol. In Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, I, for 22 
it should be read 32. 

7 Migne, PG., xiv. 21 830. 8 Comm. in Io. i. 4; vi. I. 

9 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 28. 10 Orig., Comm. in Matth. ser., c. 133. 

11 Migne, PG., xiv. 829832. 12 Ib., xiv. 831 1294. 

13 Hier, Ep. 49, 3. 

14 Cf. the Catalogue, and Hier., Comm. in Gal., prol.; Ep. 112, 4. 

15 Apol. pro Orig., c. 5; Migne, PG., xiv. 12931298. l6 Hier., 11. cc. 
17 Hier., Comm. in Epiph., prol.; Adv. Rufin., i. 16, 21; iii. 11. 

39- ORIGEN. 145 

are met with in the Catenae, also a Latin fragment in Jerome *. Ac 
cording to the Catalogue he wrote a commentary in one book on 
the Epistle to the Philippians, and one in two books on the Epistle 
to the Colossians, while Pamphilus 2 quotes a passage from a third 
book of that commentary. Similarly, the Catalogue mentions a com 
mentary in three books on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, a 
long fragment of which is quoted by St. Jerome 3 . He also wrote 
a commentary in one book on the Second Epistle to Thessalonians. 
The same Catalogue indicates two homilies on Epist. ad Thess. without 
distinguishing to which one they belong. He wrote a homily and 
a commentary in one book on the Epistle to Titus; Pamphilus 4 
cites five fragments from it. The same writer has also preserved 5 a 
fragment of a commentary in one book on the Epistle to Philemon. 
It would seem that the only remnants of the eight homilies on the 
Epistle to the Hebrews are two quotations in Eusebius 6 . Though, 
strangely enough, the Catalogue says nothing of a commentary on 
Hebrews; Pamphilus 7 quotes four passages from it. There is no 
indication in the Catalogue of any treatises on the Catholic Epistles 
or on the Apocalypse. It is certain, however, that Origen intended 
to write a commentary on the latter 8 . 

A new edition of the exegetical works of Origen will need to sift 
with more care than has hitherto been used the Catenae-fragments fre 
quently referred to in the preceding pages. There must be a sifting of 
the genuine from the spurious; as far as possible, each genuine passage 
must also be traced back to its proper source. Many such fragments are 
found in the De la Rue edition (Migne, xii xiii, passim). Additions were 
made by Gallandi and Mai (Migne, xvii. 9 370: Supplementum ad Ori- 
genis Exegetica). In his Analecta sacra, ii. 335 345 349483; iii. i to 
588, Pitra published recently from Vatican Catenae lengthy fragments on 
the Old Testament (Octateuch, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets). Cf 
Fr. Loofs in Theol. Literaturzeitung 1884, pp. 459 463. For fragments 
of New Testament Catenae see especially J. A. Cramer, Catenae graeco- 
rum Patrum in Nov. Test., Oxford, 1838 1844, 8 voll. On the Catenae 
in general cf. Prcuschen in Harnack , 1. c., 403 405 835 842. On the 
extracts from the homilies on Josue found in Procopius of Gaza see 
E. Klostermann in Texte und Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1894, xii. 3, 2. 
The homily on i Kings, c. xxviii (the Witch of Endor) , was re-edited 
(1886) with the reply of St. Eustathius of Antioch by A. Jakn, 1. c., ii. 4. 
Origen s commentary on the Canticle of canticles is dealt with by W. Riedel, 
Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes, Leipzig, 1898, pp. 52 --66. The text- 
tradition of the homilies on Jeremias is illustrated by E. Klostermann, in 
Texte und Untersuchungen (1897), xvi., new series, i. 3. For the ideas of 
Origen on the Book of Daniel as gathered from writings, extant or lost, 
in the commentary of St. Jerome on Daniel, cf. J. Lataix, Le commen- 

1 Hier., Adv. Rufin., i. 28. z Apol. pro Orig., c. 5. 

3 Ep. 119, 9 10 ; cf. Orig., Contra Gels., ii. 65. 

4 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 19. 5 lb., c. 6. 

6 Hist, eccl., vi. 25, 11 14. 7 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 3 5. 

3 Comm. in Matth., ser. c. 49. 


taire de St. Jerome stir Daniel ii, opinions d Origene , in Revue d hist. 
et de litterat. religieuses (1897), ii. 268275. On the Greek fragments of 
the homilies on St. Luke edited by A. Thenn in Zeitschr. fur wissensch. 
Theol. (1891 1893) cf. y. Sickenberger , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1896), 
Ixxviii. T 88 191. For a new edition of the remnants of the commentary 
on St. John we are indebted to A. E. Brooke, Cambridge, 1896, 2 voll. 
y. A. P. Gregg, The commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, in Journal of Theological Studies (1902), iii. 233 234 398420 
554 576, began a republication of that commentary; its fragments had 
already been collected by Cramer from the Catenae. For the Tractatus 
Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum edited by Batiffol and Wilmart in 
1900 cf. 55, 4. Concerning the canon of the Old Testament in Origen 
see y. P. van Kasteren, in Revue biblique (1901), x. 412 423. E. Preu- 
schen, Bibelzitate bei Origenes, in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch. 
(1903), iv. 79 87. The general character of his homilies is discussed 
by Rcdepenning, Origenes, ii. 212 261. Cf. Westcott, in Diet, of Christ. 
Biogr., iv. 104 118, where the reader will find a good index of the con 
tents of the homilies and commentaries. There is a German version ot 
some homilies by E. A. Winter, in G. Leonhardi, Die Predigt in der Kirche, 
Leipzig, 1893, xxii. C. yenkins, The Origen-Citations in Cramer s Catena 
on i Corinthians, Journal of Theological Studies (1904), vi. 113 116. 

cipally the mystic sense of the Scriptures that Origen seeks to ex 
hibit in his exegetical works; the historical sense he almost entirely 
neglects 1 . Guided by the analogy of Plato s trichotomous division 
of man he felt obliged to distinguish in the Scriptures a triple sense : 
somatic, psychic and pneumatic 2 . Practically, his theory would not 
work. And so, in view of the division of the Cosmos into flesh and 
spirit (alfffhjTa, and vor^d), he was wont to distinguish in the Scrip 
tures a carnal and a spiritual sense 3 . His fatal error was the total 
abandonment or denial , in many places, of the literal or historical 
sense, in favor of the spiritual sense 4 . There are, he maintained, 
in the Holy Scriptures repulsive and scandalous and impossible sayings 
fffxdvda/M xai Ttpoffxo/jifJiaTa xac douvaraj , the carnal interpretation 
of which is intolerable; when interpreted spiritually, however, they 
are seen to be only the integuments of deep mysteries 5 . Even 
the Evangelists frequently set forth pneumatic truth in somatic false 
hood 6 (ffO)ofJlVOU "OAAV.XIQ T0[) dtyftoUQ TTVSUfJtaTtXOtJ SV TCO (TCOfJ.V.TCXW, 

WQ (iv sl noc. TtQ, ^z jdzi). It must be admitted that Origen pos 
sessed a certain knowledge of Hebrew, though it did not excede 
very modest limits 7 . For the comparison of the Septuagint and 
the original Hebrew he was always dependent upon the authority 
of others. Indeed, the dominant idea of the Hexapla is their apo- 

1 Hier., Comm. in Mai., prol. 

2 De princ., iv , ii ; Horn, in Levit., v. I 5. 

3 Horn, in Levit., i. I ; Comm. in Jo., x. 4. 

4 Horn, in Gen. ii. 6; De princ, iv. 12. 5 De princ., iv. 15. 

6 Comm. in Jo., x. 4. 7 Horn, in Gen., xii. 4; Horn, in Num.^ xiv. I, 

39- ORIGEN. 147 

logetic usefulness, rather than the gain of textual criticism. He was 
all the less inclined to entertain the idea of a critical study of the 
Septuagint translation on the basis of the original Hebrew, since 
he was persuaded that the text of the Septuagint was divinely in 
spired l . Its obscurities and solecisms are to him signs of special my 
steries. When he detects a variation from the Hebrew text or from 
New Testament quotations, he prefers to admit falsification of the 
original Hebrew by the Jews , or a corruption of the manuscripts 
of the New Testament, rather than to acknowledge an error on the 
part of the Septuagint. 

Redepenning, Origenes, i. 232 324; cf. ii. 156 188. A. Zollig , Die 
Inspirationslehre des Origenes. Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte (Straft- 
burger theolog. Studien, v. i), Freiburg i. Br. 1902. 

6. WORKS AGAINST PAGANS AND JEWS. - - An apologetic work 
in eight books against Celsus (xara Kilao j, contra Celsunt) has been 
preserved in a Vatican codex of the thirteenth century 2 ; the Philo- 
calia has also preserved lengthy fragments of it, equal in size to 
about one seventh of the whole work. Celsus, a Platonic eclectic, 
had published about 178 a work entitled Veracious Demonstration* 
(dtyttyQ AofOQJ. From Origen s refutation of the work we gather 
that in the first part the author attacked Christianity, in the person 
of a Jew who took his stand upon the racial faith in the Messias; 
in the second part he undertook to show the hopelessness of the 
Messianic idea and thereby to overthrow the cornerstone of Christia 
nity; in the third part he assailed certain specific Christian doctrines, 
while in the fourth he defended the state-religion of the heathens. 
As is stated in the preface, the refutation of this work was written 
by Origen at the request of his friend Ambrose, during the reign 
of Philippus Arabs 3 , probably in 248, and follows sentence by sen 
tence the text of the Demonstration . It falls, therefore, pre 
scinding from the long introduction (i. I 27), into four parts that 
correspond with the division of the work of Celsus (i. 28 to ii. 79; 
iii to v; vi. i to vii. 61; vii. 62 to viii. 71). Both in ancient 4 and 
modern times, it has been pronounced the most perfect apologetic work 
of the primitive Church. At least, Origen has nowhere exhibited 
greater learning. His calm attitude and dignified diction, the natural 
outcome of a sense of intellectual superiority, affects the reader favo 
rably when compared with the passionate invectives of his opponent. 
In this same work 5 Origen refers to a discussion with some learned 
Jews in presence of several legal arbiters. It was probably reduced 
to writing, but we have no more accurate knowledge concerning it. 

1 Comrn. in Cant. i. ; Migne, PG., xiii. 93. * Migne, PG., xi. 641 1632. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2. 4 E^ts., Adv. Hierocl. c. i. 

5 Contra Celsum i. 45. 


P. Koetschau, Die Uberlieferung der Biicher des Origenes gegen Celsus, 
in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1889, vi. i ; cf. F. Wctllis in The 
Classical Review (1889), iii. 392 398; J. A.Robinson in The Journal of 
Philology (1890), xviii. 288 296. The editio princeps (Greek text) is that 
of D. Hoschel, Augsburg, 1605. A new edition has been prepared by 
Koetschau, Leipzig, 1899 (Die griech. christl. Schriftsteller der ersten drei 
Jahrh., Origenes I II ; see 39, 2). A German translation was made by J. Rohm, 
Kempten, 1876 1877, 2 voll. (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). K. J. Neumann, 
Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, Leipzig 1900, i. 265 273 
(treats of the time and occasion of its composition). J. Patrick, The apo 
logy of Origen in reply to Celsus, London, 1892. See also the literature 
relative to the work of Celsus: Th. Keim , Celsus Wahres Wort, Zurich, 
1873. B. Aubt , Hist, des persecutions de 1 Eglise, ii. La polemique 
pa ienne a la fin du IP siecle, 2. ed., Paris, 1878. E. Pdagaud, Celse, 
Paris, 1879. P- Koetschau, Die Gliederung des fltXijIH)? Xoyoc des Celsus, in 
Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1892), xviii. 604 632. J.Fr. S.Muth, DerKampf 
des heidnischen Philosophen Celsus gegen das Christentum, Mainz, 1899. 
F. A. Winter, Uber den Wert der direkten und indirekten Uberlieferung 
von Origenes Biichern Contra Celsum (Progr.), Burghausen, 1903, i. 

7. WORKS AGAINST HERETICS. - - His writings against heresy, 
and the records of his oral controversies with heretics, are known 
to us only through citations ; thus, Julius Africanus mentions * a dis 
putation on an unknown subject with a certain Agnomon (?) Bassus. 
Origen himself tells us of a discussion with the Valentinian Candidus 
(in the Catalogue it is called Dialogus adversus Candidum Valenti- 
nianum), probably at Athens about 240 , on the origin of the Son 
from the Father, and the possibility of the devil s conversion 2 . Euse- 
bius narrates the fact of his colloquy with Berillus, bishop of Bostra 
in Arabia, on the subject of Monarchianism, about the year 244 3 . 

The tradition in Epiphanius (Haer. 66, 21) that Origen refuted the 
Manichaeans, and that he wrote against Menander, Basilides, Hermogenes 
and others, took its origin, very probably, in the fact that incidentally his 
works abound in anti-heretical polemic. Cf. Theodoret., Haer. fab. comp. 
i. 2 4 19 25; ii. 2 7; iii. i. For the authorship of the Philosophumena 
cf. 54, i 3, and on the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide cf. 46, 2. 

8. DOGMATIC WRITINGS. - - The original text of all the doctrinal 
writings of Origen is lost. The most important of these works was 
the De Principiis, 7izp\ dpyuw. It treated in four books of the funda 
mental doctrines or principles of Christian faith. Only some meagre 
fragments of the original have been preserved, mostly in the Philo- 
calia Origenis (cc. I 21). The whole work has reached us in a 
translation, or rather a free paraphrase, by Rufinus 4 ; on the other 
hand the translation of St. Jerome, that aimed at literal correctness, 

1 Jul. Afr., Ep. ad Orig. c. I ; Orig., Ep. ad Afr. c. 2. 

" 2 Orig., Ep. ad quosdam caros sues Alexandriam, in Rufin., De adult, libr. Orig. ; 
Migne, PG., xvii. 624 ff. ; Hier., Adv. Rufin., ii. 18 19. 

3 Hist, eccl., vi. 33, 3 ; Hier., De viris ill. c. 60. 

4 Migne, PG., xi. in 414. 

39- ORIGEN. 149 

has shared the fate of the original. Only a few fragments of it are 
extant 1 . On the foundations of the apostolic preaching, as roughly 
outlined by him at the beginning of his work, Origen undertakes to 
construct a consistent system of doctrine. The first book treats dif 
fusely of God and the world of spirits; the second of the world and 
man, their renovation by means of the Incarnation of the Logos, and 
their end or scope; the third discusses human freedom and the final 
triumph of the good ; the fourth is devoted to a theory of scriptural 
interpretation. This work was composed at Alexandria 2 , about 230, 
and is the earliest attempt at a scientific exposition of Christian doc 
trine. By reason, however, of its departure from the lines of eccle 
siastical tradition it aroused in equal measure both opposition and 
admiration. It was at Alexandria also 3 (before 231) that he wrote 
his ten books of Miscellanies (arpcoparelq; cf. 38, 3), on the aim 
and contents of which the few extant fragments 4 throw no clear light. 
From the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, Numenius 
and Cornutus, he drew proofs of the truth of Christianity 5 . Various 
scriptural texts, e. g. of Daniel and Galatians, were explained by 
means of scholia*. Before writing the De principiis he had composed 
at Alexandria two books on the resurrection, ^spl dvaGrdascoQ 1 . The 
Catalogue of his works mentions two dialogues on the same subject 
dedicated to his friend Ambrose 8 . Some fragments of his work on 
the resurrection (De resurrectione) 9 of the body are preserved in the 
homonymous work of Methodius of Olympus; others in a treatise 
of St. Jerome 10 . Methodius defended against Origen the material 
identity of the risen body with that we now possess. 

A separate edition of the De principiis was published by E. R. Rede- 
penning, Leipzig, 1836. C. Fr. Schnitzer had already undertaken a recon 
struction of it in German, Stuttgart, 1835. For an English translation of 
the fragments of the De principiis see Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 
1885, iv. 239 384). The libellus de arbitrii libertate mentioned by Origen 
(Comm. in Rom., vii. 16) is identified with De principiis, iii. i. The little 
work On the sin against the Holy Spirit in Athanasius (Ep. 4 , 9 ad 
Scrap.) corresponds to De principiis, i. 3. E. Riggenbach, Der trinitarische 
Taufbefehl Mt. xxviii. 19 bei Origenes, Giitersloh, 1904. 

9. ASCETIC WORKS AND HOMILIES. - Two of his works on 
practical asceticism have reached us, and their text is fairly well- 
preserved. Though not exempt from the influence of heterodox 

1 Hier., Ep. 124. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 3. 3 Ib. 

4 Migne, PG., xi. 99108. 

5 Hier., Ep. 70, 4 ; see the remarks of Eusebius concerning Origen s critical com 
mentaries on the writings of pagan philosophers, in Hist, eccl., vi. 18, 3. 

6 Hier., Comm. in Dan. ad iv. 5; ix. 24; xiii. i ; Comm. in Gal., prol. ; ad v. 13 

7 Orig., De princ., ii. 10, I ; Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2. 

8 Cf. Theoph. Alex., in Hier., Ep. 92, 4. 

<J Migne, PG., xi. 91 100. I0 Hier., Contra lo. Hieros, cc. 2526. 


ideas, they breathe a spirit of genuine piety. The work on Prayer 
fasp} stiff?) 1 was composed after the commentary on Genesis (c. 23), 
probably after 231, and was dedicated to Ambrose and Tatiana, 
the latter s wife or sister. It treats in the first part of prayer in 
general (cc. 3 17) and in the second (cc. 1830) of the Lord s 
Prayer. The Exhortation to Martyrdom (elq imprvptov nporpemtxbq 
MfOQJ 2 , written some years later, appeals with powerful eloquence 
to Ambrose and to Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, who had 
encountered 3 grave perils in the persecution of Maximinus Thrax 

(235 238). In his Catalogue of the works of Origen St. Jerome 

mentions, beside the exegetical homilies, other homilies, of which so 
far as is known, there is now no trace: De pace horn, i, Exhorta- 
toria ad Pioniam, De ieiunio . De monogamis et trigamis horn, ii, 
In Thar so horn. ii. 

The work on Prayer was first printed at Oxford in 1686. The Ex 
hortation to Martyrdom was edited by J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674. A new 
edition of both has been brought out by P. Koetsehau, Leipzig, 1899 (Die 
griech. christl. Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrh. , Origenes i ii). For 
a German version of the same cf. J. Kohlhofer , Kempten, 1874 (Bibl. 
der Kirchenvater). F. A. Winter, liber den Wert der direkten und in- 
direkten Uberlieferung von Origenes Biichern contra Celsum (Progr.), 
Burghausen, 1903, i. 

10. THE LETTERS OF ORIGEN. - - Origen must have kept up a 
very extensive correspondence. The Catalogue of his works makes 
mention of several collections of letters: Epistolarum eius ad diver sos 
libri ix, Aliarum epistolarum libri ii, Excerpt a Origenis et diver- 
sarum ad eum epistolarum libri ii (epistolae synodorum super causa 
Origenis in libra secundo). Of all these only two complete letters 
have reached us, one to Julius Africanus 4 and one to St. Gregory 
Thaumaturgus 5 . The first was written at Nicomedia (cc. I 15) 
about 240. It defends with much erudition the genuineness and cano- 
nicity of the history of Susanna (and of the other deutero-canonical 
parts of the Book of Daniel) against objections of Julius Africanus 
in a letter addressed to Origen himself 6 . The second letter, pro 
bably written in the same year, contains fatherly advice to his former 
disciple Gregory: he should not allow his interest in the Holy 
Scriptures to flag, and should look on the study of the profane 
sciences only as a means towards the higher end of the knowledge 
of the Scriptures. Several other letters are known to us through 
citations in Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome and others, e. g. one in reply 
to the reproach of too great attachment to Hellenic science 7 , another 

1 Migne, PG., xi. 416561. 2 Ib., xi. 564637. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 28. 4 Migne, PG., xi. 4885. 

5 Ib., xi. 8892. 6 Ib., xi. 4148. 

7 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 19, 12 14. 

39- ORIGEN. 151 

to the Emperor Philippus Arabs, and one to his consort, the Em 
press Severa 1 , letters to Pope Fabian and to very many other bishops 
in the matter of his orthodoxy 2 . 

For the letter to St. Gregorius Thaumaturgus see J. Drdseke , in 
Jahrb. f. prot. Theologie (1881), vii. 102 126. It is published as an 
appendix to P. Koetschau s edition of the panegyric of St. Gregory on Origen 
(pp. 40 44, cf. xv xvii), Freiburg i. Br., 1894. 

11. WORKS OF UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP. - - In the preface to 
his Liber inter pretationis hebraicorum nominum , St. Jerome says 
that it is a Latin version of a lexicon of proper names of the Old 
Testament made by Philo, and of a similar New Testament lexicon 
made by Origen. The author of the Quaestiones et Responsa ad 
Orthodoxos, attributed to St. Justin, makes Origen the author of Ex 
position of names or measures that recur in the Sacred Scriptures 
(qu. 86; cf. 82). The work in question may be some compilation 
by a later writer of etymologies of biblical proper names, proposed 
at different times by Origen. It seems certain that in their actual 
shape the Greek Onomastica, first edited by Martianay (1699), and 
recently by de Lagarde (1870 1887), are much more recent than 
the lexica compiled by Jerome. Victor of Capua 3 cites fragments 
ex libro tertio Origenis TTS/K <p6ffecov and ex Origenis libro primo 
De pascha. There is no other mention of a work by Origen mpl 
<p6(jsa>v. A libel his Origenis De pascha is mentioned in the Liber 
Anatoli de ratione paschali (c. i) 4 . 

On the lexicon of the proper names in the New Testament see 
O. Bardenhewer, Der Name Maria, Freiburg, 1895 (Bibl. Studien, i. i), 
pp. 23 26; Redepenning, Origenes, i. 458 461; Zahn, Gesch. des neu- 
testamentl. Kanons, ii. 948 953. 

the purest intention of contrasting the false Gnosis with true science, 
and of winning over to the Church the educated circles of Hellenism, 
that Origen undertook the combination of Hellenic philosophy with 
the faith of the Church. Nevertheless, his doctrinal system, that he 
imagined to be both Christian and ecclesiastical, bears the marks of 
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. According to him it is a necessary 
consequence of the goodness of God that He should reveal or 
communicate Himself. It follows likewise, from His immutability, 
that this revelation should be from all eternity. Its organ is the 
Logos, other than the Father 5 , not only in person but in sub 
stance ( oijoiav xat bnoxstfjisvov : De orat. 1. c.). It is through 

1 Ib., vi. 36, 3. 

2 Ib., vi. 36, 4; for the letter to Pope Fabian see Hier., Ep. 84, 10. 

3 Schol. vet. Patr., in Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., i. 268. 

4 Migne, PG., x. 210. 

5 De orat. c. 15: erspog rou xarpdg: Contra Gels., v. 39: deorspoq &eog. 


the Logos that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; He is 
inferior to the Logos, as the latter is inferior to the Father 1 . 
The next degree in the development of the divine unity into multi 
plicity is the world of spirits, to which belong the souls of men. 
They were all created from eternity and in equal perfection. They 
are not, however, essentially good ; it is only by the exercise of their 
free will that they choose goodness. In the past they abused their 
freedom in manifold ways. In consequence, this sensible world was 
created as a place of purification for spirits expelled by God from 
their original home, enveloped in matter of divers kinds, and exiled 
in more or less gross material shapes, to which class our human 
bodies belong. In the end, however, all spirits must return to God. 
It is true that some must continue to undergo a process of purification, 
in the other world, but eventually all shall be saved and transfigured. 
Evil is then overcome ; the world of the senses has fulfilled its purpose ; 
all the non-spiritual elements sink or fade into nothing ; the original unity 
of God and of all spiritual being is restored. Withal, this final restitution 
of original conditions (drroxaTdcrTamc;, restitutio) cannot be truly called 
the end of the world ; properly speaking it is only the precarious 
term of an evolution that moves on endlessly between apostasy from 
God and return to Him. Soon after his death the famous Origenistic 
controversies broke out, and found an echo even in the far-away West. 
In 543 the Synod of Constantinople condemned in fifteen anathema- 
tisms an equal number of propositions from Origen 2 , and in 553 
the Fifth General Council ranked him with heretics in its eleventh 
anathematism 3 . 

G. Thomasius, Origenes. Ein Beytrag zur Dogmengeschichte des 3. Jahr- 
hunderts, Ntirnberg, 1837. G. Ranters, Des Origenes Lehre von der Auf- 
erstehung desFleisches (Inaug.-Diss.) , Trier, 1851. F. Harrer, Die Trinitats- 
lehre des Kirchenlehrers Origenes (Progr.), Regensburg, 1858. J. B. Kraus, 
Die Lehre des Origenes liber die Auferstehung der Toten (Progr.), Regens 
burg^ 1859. Al. Vincenzi, In S. Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis scripta et 
doctrinam nova recensio, cum appendice de actis synodi V. oecum., Romae, 
18641869, 5 voll. Knittel, Des Origenes Lehre von der Menschwerdung 
des Sohnes Gottes, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1872), liv. 97 138. H. Schultz, 
Die Christologie des Origenes im Zusammenhange seiner Weltanschauung, 
in Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1875), i. 193247 369424. J. Denis, 
De la philosophic d Origene. Memoire couronne par 1 Institut, Paris, 
1884, vii. 730. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Freiburg, 
1888, i. 2, 559604. M. Lang, Uber die Leiblichkeit der Vermmft- 
wesen bei Origenes (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1892. L. Atzberger, Gesch. 
der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit, Freiburg, 1896, 

\\T\ 9 \~\\\ 4 C* r\ f-r iSfhi-ffiiAna ~\~\c C\*-\ <^-^.-^> \ ^4-"U I -.. A /T I _ O _ O ^V T" 1 . . -- -- 7 

pp. 366456. 

L eschatologie 

d hist. et de litterature religieuses (1900), v. 99127. W. Fairweather , 

>p. 366456. G. Capitaine, De Origenis ethica, Minister, 1898. J. Turmel, 
L eschatologie a la fin du 4* siecle. i : L eschatologie orige niste, in Revue 

1 De princip., i. 3, 5. - Mansi, SS. Cone. Coll., ix. 395400. 

3 Ib., ix. 384. 


Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, London, 1901. G. Anrich, Clemens 
und Origenes als Begriinder der Lehre vom Fegfeuer (Abhandlungen fur 
H. y. Holtzmann), Tubingen, 1902. F. Nau, Le concile apostolique dans 
Origene, in Bull. crit. (1904), pp. 435438. 

13. AMBROSE. - - This oft-mentioned friend and protector of Origen 
had been a high official of the imperial court (Epiph. , Haer. 64, 3). 
Through Origen he became a convert from Gnosticism (Eus. , Hist, eccl., 
vi. 18, i). He left a correspondence with Origen (Hier., De viris ill., c. 56). 
Short fragments of two letters of Ambrose are preserved in Orig., De orat, 
c. 5; Hier., Ep. 43, i. 

14. TRYPHO. Besides some letters this disciple of Origen wrote many 
tractates (multa opuscula) , among them one on the sacrifice of the red 
cow (Nm. xix) and another on the sacrifice of Abraham (Gen. xv. 9 if). 
See Jerome, De viris ill., c. 57. So far as is known, no fragment of his 
writings has reached us. 

15. AMMONIUS. In his Church History Eusebius has confounded the 
Neoplatonist philosopher Ammonius Sakkas with a Christian of the same name. 
Among other books the latter wrote one on the accord between Moses 
and Jesus (-spl TYJ? Mwuju>c xal Irjjou aufjuptoviac : Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 19, 10). 
He is probably identical with the Ammonius of Alexandria who com 
piled a synopsis of the gospels (ota Tsaaapwv suay/eAiov) based on St. Matthew 
(Eus., Ep. ad Carpianum; Hieronymus is inexact in De viris ill., c. 55). 
It is supposed that Ammonius was a contemporary of Origen. For the 
Latin gospel-harmony printed under his name see 18, 3. 

40. Dionysius of Alexandria. 

i. HIS LIFE. - - He was born, apparently, before the end of 
the second century \ of heathen parents. Through diligent reading 
and earnest investigation he was led to the Christian faith 2 , and 
began to frequent the school of Origen 3 . From 231 232 he 
was the successor of Heraklas as head-master of the Alexandrine 
catechetical school 4 and retained the office, it would seem, even after 
he had succeeded Heraklas (247 248) as bishop of Alexandria 5 . 
The rest of his life was a series of conflicts and sufferings. In 250 251, 
he escaped by flight from the persecution of Decius 6 . During the 
persecution of Valerian in 257 258 he was banished to Kephro 
in Libya, and later to Colluthion in the Mareotis, a still more savage 
and Libya-like place 7 . He does not seem to have returned to 
Alexandria before March 262. There he found awaiting him a con 
dition of civil war, famine and pestilence 8 . He was too ill to take 
part in the Synod that met at Antioch in 264 265 in order to de 
cide concerning Paul of Samosata 9 ; he passed away during the de 
liberations of the Synod 10 . 

Dittrich, Dionysius der Grofie von Alexandrien, Freiburg 1867. Cf. 
Th. Forster, in Zeitschr. fur die histor. Theol. (1871), xli. 42 76. 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 27, 2. Ib., vii. 7, 3. 

3 Ib., vi. 29, 4. 4 Ib. 5 Ib., vi, 35. 6 Ib., vi. 40. 

7 Ib., vii. II. 8 Ib., vii. 21 22. a Ib., vii. 27, 2. 

10 Ib., vii. 28, 3. 


2. WORKS OF DIONYSIUS. - - He was honored by Eusebius with 
the title of Great 1 , and Athanasius called him a Doctor of the 
Catholic Church 2 . His greatness, however, was more in the man 
than in the teacher. He bore with energy and success the part that 
fell to him in the ecclesiastical difficulties of his time, and showed 
himself no less eloquent and firm in dealing with error, than he was 
mild and sagacious in his treatment of those who had gone astray. 
His writings are all occasional, dictated by the need of the hour. 
His diction is clear and lively, and while in doctrinal exposition he 
is not free from obscurity, he is always dominated by the noblest 
and most self-sacrificing spirit of zeal for the salvation of souls. Only 
a few fragments of his writings have reached us; most of them and 
those of chief importance, owe their preservation to their insertion 
into the Church History of Eusebius. 

These fragments are found in Migne, PG., x. 1233 1344, 1575 1602, 
but in a very imperfect condition. A better edition is that of S. de Magi- 
stris, Rome, 1796, overlooked by Migne. For a list of the fragments missing 
in the edition of Migne see Pitra, Analecta Sacra iii. 596. Some Syriac and 
Armenian fragments current under the name of Dionysius were collected 
and translated into Latin by P. Martin, in Pitra, 1. c. , iv. 169 182, 
413 422 (cf. xxiii ff.). See Harnack, Gesch. der altchristlichen Literatur, 
i. 409 427; TJi. Forster, De doctrina et sententiis Dionysii M. ep. Alex. 
(Dissert, inaug.), Berlin, 1865; C/i. L. Feltoe, AIOVUJI OU Xsfyava. The Letters 
and other remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, in Cambridge Patristic 
Texts (1904), xxxv. 283. 

3. HIS PRINCIPAL WORKS. - - In the Books on Nature, ol xsp} 
yjffscoQ Aofoi 3 , as the fragments in Eusebius 4 show, he composed a 
solid and thorough polemic against an Epicureanism or materialism 
based on the atomic system of Democritus. The work was probably 
composed previous to 247 248. We know only the title of the 
Book on Temptations (o xspl nstpaafjL&v AofOQJ 5 . Through a later 
Catena there have come down some copious fragments, generally 
speaking authentic, of his commentary on Ecclesiastes 6 , written 
supposedly before 247248. They cover Ecclesiastes I, I to 3, II 7 . 
The Catenae-fragments on the Book of Job are not genuine. Two 
Books on the Promises (itzp\ Ena-ffSAtaw duo ffUffpafJi/jtaTaj, written 
probably in 253 257, are directed against a Refutation of the 
Allegorists (%faf%oq (DJ^opiGicov), composed by a certain Nepos, 
bishop in the district of Arsinoe 8 . In opposition to Origen the latter 
undertook to defend the historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and 
maintained that in the Apocalypse there was promised after the Re- 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii., praef. 2 Ep. de sent. Dion., c. 6. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, 2. 

4 Praep. Evang., xiv. 2327; Migne, PG., x. 12491268. 

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, 2. 6 Ib., vii. 26, 3. 

7 Migne, PG., x. 15771588. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 24, I. 


surrection a millennial reign of the just on this earth. In the first book 
of his work Dionysius argued against these Chiliastic dreams, while in 
the second he commented on the authority of the Apocalypse. Ac 
cording to him it was composed by a holy and divinely inspired 
man, though not by the Evangelist John *. His own orthodoxy 
was the subject of a controversy that broke out apropos of some 
letters he wrote, after 257, in reference to Sabellianism 2 . In order 
to emphasize very plainly the personal distinction between the Father 
and the Son, Dionysius had made use of expressions and similes that 
implied a distinction in substance and reduced the Son to the rank 
of a creature 3 . For this a complaint was laid against him before 
Pope Dionysius (259 268), and he was invited by the latter to ex 
plain his words. This he did in a reply 4 to the Pope, and more 
fully in the four books of his Refutation and Defence f^ef^oQ 
xat djcoXoyia.) 5 . They contain an exposition of his thoroughly orthodox 
teaching concerning the Trinity, and seem to have quite satisfied the 
Pope. The extant fragments have come down to us chiefly through 
citations in Athanasius and Basil the Great. 

The first and most complete collection of the fragments of the work 
on Nature is in Routh , Reliquiae sacrae, iv. 393437. The fragments 
preserved by Eusebius were translated into German and illustrated at 
length by G. Roch , Die Schrift des alexandr. Bischofs Dionysius d. Gr. 
tiber die Natur (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1882. There is an English 
translation of the literary remains of Dionysius by Salmond, in Ante-Nicene 
Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 81 120. For the spurious Catenae-frag 
ments on Job see Routh, 1. c., iv. 439 454, and ib. ; iii. 390 400 (Migne, 
PL., v. 117 128) for the remnants of the Refutation and Defence, taken 
from Athanasius, Basil the Great, and other authors. We ought probably to 
add a fragment from the first book of the work against Sabellius (~poj 2a- 
psXXtov), mentioned by Eusebius (Praep. evang., vii. 19). For his teaching 
concerning the Trinity see H. Hagemann, Die romische Kirche ... in den 
ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1864, PP- 411 432, and Dittrich, 
1. c., pp. 91115. 

4. HIS LETTERS. -- Apropos of the schism of Novatian and the 
question of the treatment of the Lapsi, Dionysius wrote, after 251, 
a serie-: of letters, in which he urged Novatian and his followers to 
submit to the legitimate Pope Cornelius (251- 253) and advocated 
the mildest possible treatment of those who had fallen during the per 
secutions. His Letter to the anti-pope Novatian is a noble and memo 
rable document 6 . He wrote also a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, 
some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius 7 . After 256 he 

1 Fragments of the second book in Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 24 25; Migne , PG., 
x. 12371250. 

2 Eiis., Hist, eccl., vii. 6, 26, I. 3 Athan., Ep. de sent. Dion., c. 4. 
4 Ib., c. 18. 5 Ib., c. 13; cf. Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, i. 

6 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 45. 

7 Ib., vi. 41 42 44; for other letters cf. ib., vi. 46. 


acted as peacemaker in the conflict concerning the validity of heretical 
baptism, though he does not seem to have thoroughly grasped the 
full meaning of the controversy. Only Eusebian excerpts of the 
latter correspondence have reached us 1 . Apropos of the teachings 
of Paul of Samosata he wrote in 264 265 a condemnatory letter 
to the Church of Antioch 2 . The letter to Paul, found in the col 
lections of the councils 3 , is an Apollinarist or Monophysite forgery. 
It was an ancient custom of the bishops of Alexandria to send 
an annual letter to the churches of their dioceses. Such communi 
cations were known as Festal Letters (imaroXat kopraanxai) and 
were usually issued after Epiphany. They announced the date of 
Easter and the beginning of the preparatory fast ; they also contained 
instructions concerning the Easter festival or other matters. From 
a few of these Festal Letters of Dionysius, Eusebius has saved 
some historical data 4 . In a Festal Letter to Domitius and Didymus, 
written in the reign of Decius, before the Easter of 25 1 5 , Dionysius 
promulgates an eight-year paschal cycle, and orders that the feast 
shall always be celebrated after the Spring Equinox 6 . He wrote 
in his own defence to the Egyptian bishop Germanus who had 
reproached him for flying from the persecution 7 . In a letter to 
Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt, Dionysius related much 
concerning the iniquity of Decius and his successors and then made 
mention of the peace under Gallienus 8 . A letter to Basilides, 
bishop of the churches of the Pentapolis 9 , has been preserved 
in its entirety, by reason of its incorporation among the canonical 
documents of the Greek Church. It treats principally of the precise 
time of the Resurrection of Our Lord, and therefore of the time 
when the fast of preparation should cease and the paschal festivities 
begin 10 . Stephen Gobarus mentions a letter of Dionysius to Theo- 
tecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, written after the death of 
Origen, and dealing favorably with his memory 11 . 

The Epistola canonica ad Basilidem is in Routh, 1. c. , iii. 219 250, 
also in Pitra, luris eccles. Graecorum historia et monumenta, Romae, 1864, 
J - 54* 545; cf. 548 f. For two letters in a Codex Vaticanus bearing the 
name of Dionysius but belonging to Isidore Pelusiota, see G. Mercati, 
Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, v. 286), 
Rome, 1901. G. Holzhey, in Theol. - praktische Monatsschrift (1901), xi. 
5 J 3 -5 2 5> concludes from the relations between the Didascalia Apostolorum 
? 46) and the works of Dionysius that towards the end of his literary 
career he recast the original nucleus of the Didascalia - } probably it was 
done by one of his disciples, shortly after his death. At a later date this 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 49. "- Ib., vii. 27, 2. 

J Mansi, i. 1039 1088. * Eus., Hist, eccl. , vii. 2022. 

Ib., vii. ii, 20-25. 6 Ib., vii. 20. T Ib., vi. 40; vii. ii. 

8 Ib., vii. 22, 12; fragments ib., vii. i, 10, 23. 9 Ib., vii. 26, 3. 

10 Migne, PG., x. 12711290. u Phot., Bibl. God. 232. 


revised Didascalia was enlarged to its present shape. In the Revue 
d Histoire ecclesiastique (1901), ii. 808 809, F. X. Funk, expresses grave 
doubts concerning this theory of Holzhey. 

5. ANATOLIUS. - - This writer appears about 262 as a respectable and 
influential citizen of Alexandria. We meet him later as coadjutor of Theo- 
tecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. From 269 he was bishop of Lao- 
dicea in Syria. He was well-skilled in philosophy, the natural sciences 
and mathematics, and he wrote some works : on Easter (-spl TOO -rcaj/a), an 
introduction to arithmetic (dptBfxr)Tixal 177.7(077.1) in ten books, and spe- 
cimens of his erudition and ability in theology (Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 6; 
Hier., De viris ill., c. 73). His theological writings are lost. Of very 
doubtful authenticity are certain mathematical fragments under the name 
of Anatolius (Fabricius-Harles, Bibl. Gr., iii. 461 462 464; Migne, PG., 
x. 231 236). Of his work on Easter, Eusebius has preserved a long 
fra gment (Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 14 19). As to the Liber Anatoli de ratione 
paschali printed with a commentary (Migne, PG. , x. 209 232), we may 
believe with Zahn (Forschungen [1884], iii. 177 196) that it is not a 
translation of the work of the hishop of Laodicea, although in the second 
chapter, almost the entire Eusebian paschal-fragment is cited. Br. Krusch 
maintains (Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologic, Leipzig, 1880, 
pp. 311 316) that it is a sixth-century forgery, made in England during 
the Brito-Roman controversy on the manner of celebrating Easter. We 
owe to Krusch a new edition of the Liber Anatoli (ib. , pp. 316 327). 
Cf. A. Anscombe and C. H. Turner, in The English Historical Review (1895), 
x. 515 535 699710: T. Hicklin, The date and origin of the Pseudo- 
Anatolius de ratione paschali, in Journal of Philology (1901), xxviii. 
137 151. He finds in the work traces of an original composition about 
300, and of a version made about 410. There is an English translation 
by Salmond, of the fragments of Anatolius, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. 
Coxe, 1896), vi. 146 153. 

41. The later headmasters of the catechetical school of Alexandria. 

I . THEOGNOSTUS. In an anonymous excerpt from Philippus Sidetes 
( 20, i), it is said that Pierius was the successor of Dionysius in the 
catechetical school of Alexandria, and that Theognostus succeeded 
Pierius. In all probability, however, Theognostus preceded Pierius 1 ; 
this writer is not mentioned by either Eusebius or Jerome. He 
left seven books of Hypotyposes (uxoToxwasu;, cf. 38, 4). Ac 
cording to the description of them by Photius-, they contained a 
dogmatic system disposed in a strictly orderly manner, but also 
strongly influenced by Origenistic theories. The first book treated of 
God the Father, the second of the Son, the third of the Holy Spirit, 
the fourth of angels and demons, the fifth and sixth of the Incarnation 
of the Son, the seventh of the divine creation of the world (n^pi 
$eo j drjfJLtoupYiaQ). Certain citations from Theognostus in works of 
Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa were very probably taken from 
the Hypotyposes . 

1 Athan., Ep. 4 ad Scrap, c. 9; Ep. de deer. Nic. Syn., c. 25. 
* Bibl. Cod. 106. 


For the testimonia concerning Theognostus and the editions of the 
fragments of the Hypotyposes see Migne, PG., x. 235 242, and Routh, 
Reliquiae sacrae (2), iii. 405 422. For an English translation of the frag 
ments of Theognostus see Salmond , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 
1890), vi. 155 156. - - A. Harnack , Die Hypotyposen des Theognost 
(Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, ix. 3), Leipzig, 1903. Fr. Diekamp, 
Ein neues Fragment aus den Hypotyposen des Alexandriners Theognostus, 
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1902), Ixxxiv. 48 494. 

2. PIERIUS He was a priest of Alexandria, in the time of Theonas, 
bishop of that city (281 300), and was distinguished as an ascetic, 
a writer and a preacher 1 . His ability as a Christian orator caused 
him to be known as the younger Origen 2 . Philippus Sidetes (see 
41, i) and Photius 3 assert that he was head-master of the cate 
chetical school at Alexandria. They also say (Philip in an extract 
first edited by De Boor) that he was a martyr. They probably do 
not mean that he actually died a martyr s death, but that he publicly 
confessed Christ. He certainly survived the persecution of Diocletian, 
for we meet him at Rome after the persecution of Diocletian 4 . Photius 5 
speaks of a work (pif-Mov) of Pierius in twelve treatises (MyotJ containing 
Origenistic errors on the subordination of the Holy Spirit and the pre- 
existence of souls. Eusebius and Jerome may be interpreted as meaning 
that it was a book of sermons 6 . According to Photius, one fragment 
of the work was entitled on the gospel of St. Luke fstQ TO xara 
Aouxavj, another on Easter and Osee (sl^ TO Tidayo. xac rbv "Qar t i). 
St. Jerome says 7 that the latter work was a long Easter sermon 
on the beginning of the prophecy of Osee. The titles of three other 
works are mentioned in the excerpts found in Philippus Sidetes; the 
first of a series of paschal sermons (b rrpwwQ ti>?oc, rwv SCQ TO ndaya) 
on the ideas of St. Paul concerning virginity and matrimony 8 ; on 
the Mother of God (mp\ TY,Q &ZOTOXO<J) ; on the life of St. Pamphilus 
(dq TOV fiiov TOO afiou<piXov), the friend of Eusebius and disciple 
of St. Pierius 9 . 

For the fragments of Pierius see Routh, 1. c. , iii. 423435, and 
Migne, PG., x. 241246. Some new fragments were published by C. de Boor, 
in Texte und Untersuchungen (1888), v. 2, 165184. For an English 
translation of the fragments of Pierius see Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 
(ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 157. -- Until recently the above-mentioned bishop, 
Theonas of Alexandria, was usually identified with the homonymous bishop 
under whose name had long been current a Latin letter ad Ludanum cubi- 
culariorum praepositum, first published by d Achery in 1675, whence it pas 
sed unchallenged into the Bibliothecae patrum (Routh, 1. c., iii. 437449; 
Migne, PG., x. 15671574). This letter pretends to instruct Lucian, chief 
of the imperial chamberlains , and the other Christian officers at court as 

Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 26 f. 30. * Hier., De viris ill., c. 76. 

Bibl. Cod. 118 119. 4 Hier ^ De yiris m<) c 76 _ 

5 Bibl. Cod. 119. e us t } c . ifiet\, 1. c. 

7 L. c. and Comm. in Hos., praef. 8 Hier En 49 3 

9 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118 119. 


to the manner in which they shall act in order to preserve and strengthen 
the favorable sentiments of the still pagan emperor (Diocletian?) towards 
Christians. After the researches of P. Batiffol, in Bulletin Critique (1886), 
vii. 155 1 60, and Harnack, Theol. Literaturzeitung (1886), xi. 319 326, 
there can be no doubt that the letter is a forgery of late date, perhaps 
from the pen of the Oratorian Jerome Vignier (f 1661): cf. 3, 2. - 
A. Harnack, Der gefalschte Brief des Bischofs Theonas an den Ober- 
kammerherrn Lucian, in Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 
1903, ix. 3. There is an English translation of the Letter of Theonas by 
Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 158 161. 

3. PETER OF ALEXANDRIA. - - According to the afore-mentioned 
excerpts from Philippus Sidetes, Theognostus was followed by 
Serapion in the headship of the Alexandrine catechetical school, and 
Serapion by Peter. It is no longer possible to identify Serapion. 
Peter, on the other hand, was bishop of Alexandria and a splendid 
model of a bishop from the year 300 until his death as a martyr 
in 3 1 1 1 . We still possess in a Latin version a brief letter addressed 
by Peter to his people shortly after the outbreak of the persecution 
of Diocletian (Febr. 303), in order to warn them against Meletius, 
the intruded bishop of Lycopolis 2 . There is extant also an epitome 
of a treatise on penance (-zp\ peravoiaQ), of the year 306, both in 
Greek and in a Syriac version. Its fourteen canons regulate the con 
ditions on which those who had fallen in the persecution might 
return to ecclesiastical communion. It is usually called Epistola canonica 3 . 
In several of the Greek manuscripts a fifteenth canon is added from 
a work of St. Peter on Easter (SIQ TO -xdaya, xspt TOO Ti(j.oya), known 
to us also from other sources. In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus 
(431) there appear three citations from a work of Peter on the Divi 
nity (xepl ftzoTYjToc) 4 . Two other citations, extant in Syriac only, are 
apparently spurious. A fragment of his work on the Coming of the 
Savior (nsp\ TTJQ acorrjpo^ rjfj.atv ^ntdiq/jtiaGj is quoted by Leontius 
of Byzantium 5 . In his work against the Monophysites this latter 
writer quotes two fragments from the first book of a work of Peter 
written against the pre-existence and the antecedent sinfulness of the 
soul (nepl Toil ftr^ds. n pound p%tv ryv fiuffiv fJLTjds. afAaprqaaaav TOOTO 
slg ffdj/jia ftkqftyvat). They are especially interesting, since they show 
that Peter opposed with energy, not only in preaching but in writing, 
the errors of Origen. This is also proved by seven Syriac fragments 
of a work De resurrectione, which rigorously defends the material 
identity of the post-resurrection body with that we now possess. 

Routh, 1. c., iv. 19 82, and Migne, PG., xviii. 449 522. The best 
edition (Greek and Syriac) of the Epistola canonica is that of P. de La- 
gar de , Reliquiae iuris eccles. antiquissimae , Leipzig, 1856, Greek text 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., ix. 6, 2, cf. viii. 13, 7; vii. 32, 31. 

2 Migne, PG., xviii. 509510. 3 Ib., xviii. 467 508. 

4 Ib., xviii. 509 512. 5 Contra Nestor, et Eutych., 1. I. 


pp. 63 73, Syriac text pp. 99 117. See also Greek text, pp. xlvi liv. 
In Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 187 195 425 430, P. Martin collected and 
translated other fragments (Syriac and Armenian). For an English trans 
lation of the Acts of Peter, the Canonical Epistle and some fragments see 
Hawkins, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 261 285. W. E. 
Crum, Texts attributed to Peter of Alexandria, in Journal of Theological 
Studies (1903), iv. 387 397. See Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, 
i. 443 449. In his Fragment einer Schrift des Martyrerbischofs Petrus 
von Alexandrien, Leipzig, 1901 (Texte und Untersuchungen , new series, 
v. 4, 2) Karl Schmidt has made known a Coptic text (with German trans 
lation) of a fragment of a rigid exhortation to the observance of the Sunday 
rest. He attributes it to Peter, who is clearly indicated in the text. The 
fragment itself is certainly of a later date ; it is perhaps the source of the 
famous Letter of Christ that was alleged to have fallen from heaven (Ana 
lecta Bollandiana (1901), xx. 101 103). 

4. PHILEAS OF THMUIS. -- From his prison in Alexandria, where he 
died a martyr about 307, Phileas, bishop of Thmuis in Lower Egypt, ad 
dressed a letter to his church. Eusebius extracted from it a long passage 
concerning the conflicts and triumphs of the martyrs at Alexandria (Hist. 
eccl., viii. 10; cf. Hier., De viris ill., c. 78). We possess also, in a Latin 
version, a letter written in common by the imprisoned bishops Hesychius, 
Pachomius, Theodorus and Phileas, addressed to Meletius, bishop of Lyco- 
polis, who had been conferring orders outside his own diocese, in contra 
vention of the ecclesiastical canons (Routh, 1. c., iv. 83 in; Migne, PG., 
x. 1559 1568). There is an English translation of the literary remains of 
Phileas by Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 1 6 1 164. 

5. HESYCHIUS. An Egyptian Hesychius, who may have lived towards 
the end of the third century, undertook a critical revision of the Septuagint 
(Hier., Praef. in Paral. ; Comm. in Is. ad 58, n), also a recension of the 
New Testament or at least of the Gospels (Hier., Praef. in Evang.). We 
cannot say that he is identical with the Hesychius just mentioned (cf. Eus., 
Hist, eccl., viii. 13, 7, and the Introductions to the New Testament). 

6. HIERAKAS. - - This writer lived about 300 at Leontopolis in the 
Nile Delta, where he gathered about himself a large community of ascetics. 
He wrote commentaries on the Scriptures in Greek and Egyptian (Coptic), 
a work on the Hexaemeron, many new Psalms (^OCAJJIOUC TtoAXoo? vsoTepixotk), 
and perhaps some special works on marriage and on the Holy Spirit. 
He carried to the last extreme the allegorism and spiritualism of Origen, 
rejected marriage, denied the resurrection of the body, claimed that the 
Holy Ghost had manifested Himself in Melchisedech, and excluded from 
the kingdom of heaven those children who died before attaining the use 
of reason, even if they had been baptized. Our only source of information 
concerning Hierakas is the account in Epiphanius (Haer. 67 ; cf. Haer. 
55, 5; 69, 7). 

42. The so-called Apostolic Church-Ordinance. 

This is the title given by its first editor, J. W. Bickell (1843), to 
a little work which announces itself as emanating from the twelve 
Apostles. The complete Greek text has reached us in only one 
manuscript, probably of the twelfth century. The title it offers is: 
a: dia.ra.fai at dia KtytjLs.vToc, xal xavovsQ ixxfymaaTixot TCOV afitov 
The first words, al ocara^al at oca KtypevTOQ xa\, are 


surely a later addition, borrowed from the so-called Apostolic Con 
stitutions ( 75, i). Apart from the introduction (cc. I- 3) and the 
conclusion (c. 30) the work falls into two parts, the first of which 
(cc. 4 14) presents moral rules, while the second (cc. 15 29) contains 
legal ordinances. The moral rules are thrown into the form of a 
description of the Way of Life and the Way of Death, or rather of 
the Way of Life. The legal ordinances deal with the qualities of a 
bishop (c. 1 6), the presbyters (cc. 17 18), the lector (c. 19), the deacons 
(cc. 20 22), the widow-deaconesses (c. 21), also the proper conduct of 
the laity (c. 23), and the question of the participation of women in 
the liturgical service (cc. 24 29). In both parts each phrase or 
chapter is placed in the mouth of an Apostle (e. g. fwdyvyg etTrsv, 
Marftaioz, etxsy). The entire first part or description of the Way of 
Life is no more than a slightly modified revision of the Two Ways 
( 6) in the Didache (cc. I, I to 4 8). Harnack attempted to identify 
in the second part fragments of two earlier canonical documents. 
But Funk has shown that this is impossible. The work was probably 
composed towards the end of the third century, and with equal pro 
bability in Egypt. In that land it seems to have found a more general 
acceptance and diffusion, and to have attained the dignity of a local 
Canon Law. With it begins the Corpus iuris canonici of the Coptic, 
Ethiopic and Arabic churches of Egypt. An ancient Syriac version 
and a fragment of an ancient Latin version have reached us. Jerome 
mentions 1 a pseudo-Petrine work known as Liber iiidicii (i. e. Petri), 
and Rufinus knew 2 a Liber ecclesiasticus, entitled Duae viae vel 
Indicium secundum Pet rum (al. Indicium Petri]. In both places there 
is probably question of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance. The title 
Duae viae was easily suggested by the contents of the first part; 
that of ludidum Petri came probably from the fact that Peter is 
introduced as speaker oftener than the other apostles and has the 
last word (c. 30). 

For editions of the Greek text of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance see 
J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, Giessen, 1843, i- I0 7 I 3 2 i 
A. P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastic! autiquissimae graece, Leipzig, 
1856, pp. 74 79; Pttra , Iuris ecclesiastic! Graecorum historia et monu- 
menta, Romae, 1864, i. 7588; A. Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra 
canonem rec. , fasc. iv, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 93 106; 2. ed. 1884, pp. no 
to 121. It. is also reprinted or re-edited in the editions of the Didache 
( 6, 4) by Philotheos Brycnnios, Constantinople, 1883; Harnack, Leipzig, 
1884 and 1893; Ph. Schaff, New York, 1885 1886 1889 (the latter gives 
only cc. i 13 of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance); F. X. Funk, Tubingen, 
1887; y. Mendel Harris, Baltimore and London, 1887. -- An Ethiopic 
text, with a Latin version, had already been edited by y. Ludolfus, Ad suam 
Historian! Aethiopicam antehac editam Commentarius, Frankfurt, 1691, 
314323. In his Apostolic Constitutions, London, 1848, pp. i 30, 
H. Tattam published a North-Egyptian (Memphitic, Bohairic) text, with an 

1 De viris ill., c. i. 2 Comm. in Symb. Apost., c. 38. 



English version. On the basis of the edition of Tattam, P. Botticher 
(P. de Lagarde) undertook to re-translate this text into Greek, in Chr. C. 
J. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, London, 1854, ii, 451460. A South- 
Egyptian (Theban, Sahidic) text was published by P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 
Gottingen, 1883, pp. 239 248 (without a translation), and by U. Bouriant, 
in Recueil de travaux relatifs a la philol. et a 1 archeol. egypt. et assyr., 
Paris, 1883 1884, v. 202 206 (also without a translation). It has been 
shown that the North-Egyptian text is a version of the South-Egyptian; 
it is still doubtful whether it be also the parent of the Ethiopic text. 
An Arabian text, preserved in manuscript, is not yet published. In his 
Stromation Archaiologikon , Rome, 1900, pp. 1531, A. Baumstark pu 
blished a Syriac text; similarly J. P. Arendzen, An Entire Syriac Text of 
the Apostolic Church-Order, in Journal of Theological Studies (1901), iii. 
^_g 0< jr or th e conclusion of a very ancient Latin text see E. Hauler, 
Didascaliae apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia Latina, Leipzig, 1900, i. 
QJ IOI ^ Krawutzky , Uber das altkirchliche Unterrichtsbuch Die 
zwei Wege oder die Entscheidung des Petrus, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1892), Ixiv. 359 445. A. Harnack, Die Quellen der sog. apostolischen 
Kirchenordnung, Leipzig, 1886 (Texte und Untersuchungen ii. 5). Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 236251. 
Th. Schermann, Eine neue Handschrift der apostolischen Kirchenordnung, 
in Oriens Christianus (1902), pp. 398 408. 

THE LETTER OF PSENOSiRis. - - This is perhaps the place to insert, 
among the writings of the Alexandrines, the letter that the priest Pseno- 
siris wrote to Apollo, his brother in the Lord, notifying him that a female 
fellow-citizen (iroXmxrjv), exiled by the city-prefect to the Oasis, had been 
placed by him (Psenosiris) in the hands of good and faithful fossores or 
grave-diggers. This letter was discovered among other papyri that came 
from Kysis (Diisch-el-Kala) in the Great Oasis and are now in the British 
Museum. They bear dates varying from 242 to 307. It is coniectured 
that the woman was a Christian exiled for her faith to the Great Oasis, in 
which case it must be question either of the persecution of Valerian or 
that of Diocletian. Most of those who have written about this document 
decide for the latter date. 

The Letter of Psenosiris was edited by A. Deissmann , Ein Original- 
Dokument aus der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung , Papyrus 713 des 
British Museum, Tubingen and Leipzig, 1902 ; Id., The Epistle of Pseno 
siris, an Original Document from the Diocletian Persecution, London, 
1902 ; P. Franchi de Cavalieri , Una lettera del tempo della persecuzione 
diocleziana, in Nuovo Bullet, di archeologia cristiana (1902), viii. 15 25; 
A. Mercati, in the Italian translation of the present work, Rome, 1903, iii. ix. 

43- Julius Africanus. 

I . HIS LIFE. - - Sextus Julius Africanus, a Lybian \ seems to 
have been an officer in the expedition of Septimius Severus against 
the Osrhoenes (195). He enjoyed intimate relations both with the 
royal house of Edessa and the imperial family. About 211 215 he 
visited Alexandria and attended the lectures of Heraclas ( 39, i) 2 . 
During the reign of Alexander Severus (222- 235) he held an office 

1 Suidas, Lex. s. v. Africanus. - Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, 2. 


of distinction at Emmaus-Nicopolis in the plain of Philistia 1 . Later 
Syriac writers have been misled into making him a bishop of Em- 
maus; he does not seem to have been even a presbyter. He died 
after 240 (cf. 39, 10). 

H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, 
Leipzig, 1880 1898, i. i n. 

2. THE CHRONOGRAPHIA. THE KsaroL - - His most important 
work was a universal chronicle in five books completed in 221 and 
entitled Ckroncgraphia (ypovoypatpiai) 2 . Though none of its five books 
is intact, more or less lengthy fragments of all have reached us. 
The purpose of Africanus was to correlate and harmonize Jewish and 
Christian history with the history of the Gentile world. He found in 
the biblical dates the sure criterion by which to judge the historicity 
of the profane dates offered in the current manuals of chronology. 
The entire history of the world, according to Africanus, covers a 
period of six thousand years; the first three thousand are closed by 
the death of Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided 
(Gen. x. 25). The next three thousand years will close with the end 
of the world; half-way in the last millennium, i. e. in the year 5500, 
the Son of God became man. This first of Christian world-chronicles 
has never lacked zealous admirers, and industrious use .has con 
stantly been made of it. It rendered substantial service to the Father 
of Church History; in modified and often even in corrupted forms 
it has dominated all Byzantine historiography. - - He dedicated to 
Alexander Severus 3 an extensive encyclopaedia of the natural sciences, 
medicine, magic, agriculture, naval and military warfare, and gave 
it the curious title of Embroidered Girdles fxsffroij. Photius 
says 4 that it included fourteen books, but Suidas 5 gives the number 
of books as twenty-four. Of this encyclopaedia many fragments, some 
of them not unimportant, have reached us, especially through later 
and more special works, e. g. the collection of Greek tacticians, the 
compilation of excerpts from writers on agriculture known as Geoponica, 
and the manual of veterinary science known as Hippiatrica. While 
the vulgar superstition they exhibit, and the obscenities that swarm 
in the fragment on Aphrodisiac secrets, are well-calculated to lessen 
our respect for Africanus, they do not justify us in suspecting the 
authenticity of his works, or attempting to divide the authorship of 
the xsffToi and the Chronographia. 

The existing collections of the fragments of the Chronographia (Mignc, 
PG., x. 63 94; Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae [2] ii. 238 309) are unsatis 
factory. A new collection is expected from If. Gelzer (1. c.). The first 

1 Sync. Chronogr. ed. Dindorf, i. 676. * Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, 2. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, i; cf. Geoponica, 1. i, praef. : xsffTol ^ i:a.pddo$a, 

4 Bibl. Cod. 34. 5 Lex., 1. c. 

1 1 * 


part of this work of Gelzer deals with the Chronography of Africanus (supple 
mentary matter injahrb. f. prot. Theologie [1881], vii. 376 378); the second 
part (1885 1898) treats of his Greek and Latin, Syriac and Armenian 
successors. There is no satisfactory collection of the fragments of the Em- 
broidered Girdles . They are enumerated by Gelzer ; 1. c., i. 12 17, and 
Preuschen, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 508511. There is 
an English translation of the literary remains of Africanus by Salmond, in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1886), vi. 146 153. 

of Africanus to Origen has been preserved, in which he opposes the 
genuineness and canonicity of the history of Susanna in the Book of 
Daniel ( 39, 10), also fragments of another to a certain Aristides 1 in 
which, on the basis of ancient traditions, he undertakes to harmonize 
the apparent antilogies in the genealogies of Our Lord as given in 
St. Matthew and St. Luke. He makes Jacob (Mt. i. 16) the natural 
father, and Heli (Lk. iii. 23) the legal father of Joseph. Both letters 
are mentioned by Eusebius 2 , and are eloquent monuments of an 
acute and searching criticism far beyond the ordinary contemporary 
level. It is very doubtful that he wrote commentaries on the Gospels 
or on the New Testament, as the Syriac writers (Dionysius Bar Salibi 
and Ebedjesu) maintain. It is owing to an interchange of names 
(Africanus for Aphroditiamus) that a ridiculous story of miraculous 
occurrences in Persia at the time of the birth of Christ has been 
attributed to our chronographer 3 . Nor can he be the author of the 
Passio S. Symphorosae et septein filiorum eius 4 . 

Both letters of Africanus are in Routh, 1. c., ii. 225 237. See Fr. 
Spitta, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides, kritisch untersucht und 
hergestellt, Halle, 1877. For the writings falsely attributed to Africanus 
see in particular Gelzer, 1. c., i. 18 f. (Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. vii. 376 f.); 
Preuschen, 1. c., p. 513. There is an English translation of the letter to 
Origen in Ante-Nicene Fathers, (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 385 f. 

4. ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM. -- Alexander, the founder of the theo 
logical library of Jerusalem ( 37), was for a brief period bishop in Cappa- 
docia (Eus., Hist. eccl. vi. n, r 2). About 212 he became coadjutor to 
the aged bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem (ib. vi. 8, 7), and succeeded him 
shortly after in that office which he held until his glorious death as a martyr 
in 250 (ib. vi. 39, 2 3). Eusebius mentions many of his letters; one 
was written from his prison in Cappadocia to the Christians of Antioch, 
congratulating them on the choice of their new bishop, Asclepiades (ib. vi. 
n, 5 6). Another was written at Jerusalem, in the life-time of Narcissus, 
as an exhortation to the Christians of Antinonia in Egypt (ib. vi. n, 3). 
A third letter was written to Origen (ib. vi. 14, 8 9). Both Alexander 
and bishop Theoctistus of Csesarea wrote to bishop Demetrius of Alex 
andria in defence of lay-preaching (ib. vi. 19, 17 18). St. Jerome (De 
viris ill., c. 62) seems to have known another letter of Alexander to Demetrius 
concerning Origen s ordination to the priesthood. For the testimonia 
concerning Alexander see Migne, PG., x. 203 206 and Routh, 1. c. , ii. 

1 Migne, PG., x. 51 64. 2 Hist, eccl., vi. 31, i 3. 

3 Migne, PG., x. 97108. 4 Ib., x. 9398. 


159 179; Harnack, 1. c., i. 505 507: cf. ii. i, 221 223. For an English 
translation of the fragments of Alexander see Salmoitd , in Ante-Nicene 
Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 153 154. 

5. BERYLLUS OF BOSTRA. -- About 244 Origen converted this bishop 
from Monarchianism to the teachings of the Church ( 39, 7). Beryllus 
left letters and treatises (Eus., Hist. eccl. vi. 20, 2), also letters to Origen 
(Hier., De viris ill., c. 60). 

44. Paul of Samosata, Malchion of Antioch, Lucian of Samosata. 

i. PAUL OF SAMOSATA. - - He was a ducenarius of Zenobia, 
queen of Palmyra, and from 260 held the see of Antioch. Apparently 
he committed to writing his teaching that Christ was by nature only 
an ordinary man 1 . Vincent of Lerins 2 was acquainted with Opu- 
scula of Paul, and a later Greek writer has left us some Christo- 
logical fragments of his discourses to Sabinus (npbs Sajftvov 

Mai, Script, vet. nova coll. (1833), vii. i 68 sq. ; Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae 
(2) iii. 329 f. See G. D. Rossini , L impresa di Palmira e Paolo Samo- 
sateno, in Miscellanea di Storia Eccles. (1902 1903), i. 109 133. 

2. MALCHION OF ANTIOCH. - - In consequence of the heresy of 
Paul three synods were held at Antioch from 264 269. It was only 
in the last of these synods that Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch and 
a famous teacher of rhetoric in that city, was able to convict the 
cunning sophist and to tear the mask from him. We have still some 
fragments of the discussion between Paul and Malchion, taken down 
by shorthand writers 3 . Paul was deposed and excommunicated; in a 
long encyclical letter the synod made known to the entire Catholic 
Church the history and the conclusion of the whole affair. This 
encyclical letter, according to Jerome 4 , was the work of Malchion; 
some fragments of it are extant in Eusebius 5 and in other writers. 

, For the remnants of the encyclical and the discussion see Migne, PG. 
x. 247 260, and Routh 3 1. c. iii. 300 316. Another fragment of the 
discussion is in Pitra, Analecta sacra iii. 600 f. ; cf. the Syriac fragments, 
ib. iv. 183- 1 86 423 425. There is reason to doubt the genuineness of a 
letter written to Paul before his deposition*, by six bishops: Hymenaeus 
(of Jerusalem), Theophilus, Theotecnus (of Csesarea in Palestine), Maximus 
(of Bostra), Proclus and Bolanus (Mansi, Ss. Concil. Coll. i. 1033 1040; 
Routh, 1. c. , iii. 289 299). These six bishops are mentioned by Eu 
sebius (Hist, eccl., vii. 30, 2) among those who forwarded the encyclical 
letter. Cf. P. Pape , Die Synoden von Antiochien 264 269 (Progr.), 
Berlin, 1903. For an English translation of the fragments of Malchion see 
Salmondy in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 168 172. 

3. LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA. -- Lucian, a native of Samosata, pres 
byter of Antioch and founder of the Antiochene exegetical school, 
shared the views of Paul and was probably excommunicated at the 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 27, 2. 2 Common, c. 25, al. 35. 

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 29, 2. 4 De viris ill., c. 71. 

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 30. 


same time as the latter. Although he returned to the communion 
of the Church, he did not cease to teach a decidedly subordinationist 
theology, and is the true father of Arianism. His martyrdom at 
Nicomedia (Jan. 7., 312) made reparation for his want of conformity 
to the teachings of the Church 1 . Like Hesychius ( 41, 5) Lucian 
made a critical revision of the Septuagint and a recension of the 
text of the New Testament, or at least of the Gospels 2 . In the 
fourth century this revision of the Septuagint was still in general 
use through all the churches from Antioch to Constantinople 3 ; manu 
scripts of it have survived to our day. Jerome 4 had read other 
works of Lucian : De fide lib e Hi and Breves ad nonnullos e pistol ae. 
The Chronicon Paschale* cites the conclusion of a letter of Lucian 
sent from Nicomedia to the Christians of Antioch. The statement 
of Athanasius 6 and others that a profession of faith adopted by an 
Antiochene synod in 341 was the work of Lucian, is very questionable. 

The edition of the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Jewish 
canon, published at Gottingen in 1883 by P. de Lagarde , was based on 
codices that C. Vercellone had recognized as correlated, and that A. M. 
Ceriani and Fr. Field had shown to be copies of Lucian s revision of the 
Septuagint. The Septuagint text in the Complutensian Polyglot is based 
on two of these codices. For more special information see the manuals 
of Introduction to the Old and New Testament. The fragments of other 
works of Lucian are in Routh, 1. c., iv. i 17. Among them are an 
Apology for Christianity, prepared at Nicomedia on the eve of his death, 
and taken from Rufinus paraphrase of the Church History of Eusebius 
(ix. 6); also an oral exposition of Job ii. 9 10, taken from the commen 
tary on Job by Julian of Halicarnassus. The hypothesis of F. Kattenbusch 
(Das apostolische Symbol, Leipzig, 1894, i. 252273 392395) that the 
baptismal symbol of the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 41) is the work of 
Lucian, is most probably untenable. For Lucian see in general, Acta 
SS. Jan., Venice, 1734, i. 357365, and Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. 
Lit. i. 526531; cf. Stokes, in Diet, of Christ. Biography, London, 1882, 
iii. 748 749, also (Cardinal) Newman s History of the Arians. 

45. Pamphilus of Csesarea and the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide. 

i. PAMPHILUS. - - The biography of St. Pamphilus in three books, 
by his disciple and friend Eusebius, has perished; only references 
to it and some quotations are known 7 . But in his Church History 
and in his two works on the martyrs of Palestine, Eusebius has handed 
down to posterity tributes of affectionate remembrance for Pamphilus. 
He was born of noble parents at Berytus in Phoenicia, studied theo 
logy at Alexandria under Pierius (41, 2), took up his permanent 
residence at Caesarea in Palestine, was ordained priest, opened in 

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., viii. 13, 2; ix. 6, 3. 2 Hier> p raef- in Evangi 

* Hier., Praef. in Paral. * De viris ill., c. 77. 

Migne, PG., xcii. 689. 6 Ep. de syn. c. 23. 

Eus., De mart. Palestinae, c. II, 3; Hier., Adv. Rufin., i. 9. 
8 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118 119. 


that city a theological school, and in the persecution of Maximinus 
suffered martyrdom there by decapitation (309), apparently after a 
long and tedious imprisonment. The greatest of his literary merits 
is the zeal he displayed for the enrichment and enlargement of the 
library of Csesarea ( 37). While in prison he wrote, with the help 
of his friend Eusebius, an apology for Origen (aTroAofia bxkp "Qptyivouc,) 
in five books to which, after the martyr s death, Eusebius added 
a sixth. The work was dedicated to the confessors in the mines or 
quarries of Palestine, and was an attempt to defend the theology of 
the Alexandrine from the charge of heterodoxy that many brought 
against it. Only the first of its six books has been preserved, and 
that in a not very reliable version by Rufinus of Aquileja. Pho- 
tius speaks about the whole work 1 . The latter says quite posi 
tively that Pamphilus composed the first five books 2 . In view of 
this testimony the statement of St. Jerome 3 that the Arian Eusebius 
was the true author of the work, is manifestly inexact and awakens 
a suspicion of bias. Gennadius wrongly says 4 that Rufinus translated 
a work of Pamphilus Adversum mathematico s ; he simply misunderstood 
the reasons given by Rufinus 5 for his translation of the first book 
of the Apology. Finally, in his biography of Pamphilus, Eusebius 
made mention of letters of Pamphilus to his friends 6 . 

For the testimonia antiquorum concerning Pamphilus see Preuschen, 
in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. i. 543 550. The Passio Ss. Pamphili 
et sociorum (Migne, PG. x. 1533 1550) is a fragment of the larger work 
of Eusebius on the Martyrs of Palestine, and has been re-edited by H. De- 
lehayc, in Analecta Bollandiana (1897), xvi. 129 139. The translation by 
Rufinus of the first book of the Apology for Origen is found in the edi 
tions of Origen (Migne , PG., xvii. 521 616). It is also (incomplete) in 
Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2) iii. 485 512; iv. 339 392. For traces of 
biblical manuscripts written or corrected by Pamphilus cf. W. Bousset, in 
Texte und Untersuchungen (1894), xi. 4, 45 73. 

2. DIALOGUS DE RECTA IN DEUM FIDE. There have come down 
to us in Greek and Latin texts, under the name of Origen, five dia 
logues against the Gnostics. Their Greek title is dial^ic, Ada/jtavTtou 
roil) xai Qptflvoug xspi r^c SIQ ttsov opftiJQ "xiGizto^, while in the only 
manuscript that has reached us of the Latin version made by Rufinus 
they are called Libri Adamantii Origenis adversus haereticos numero 
quinque. In these dialogues Adamantius appears as the protagonist 
of Christian faith. In the first two he attacks the doctrine of three 
(or two) principles (apyjj.i) as held by the Marcionites, Megethius and 
Marcus. In the last three dialogues he combats the theses of Marinus, 
a follower of Bardesanes. Marinus had maintained that the devil or 

1 Bibl. Cod. 1 1 8. 

2 Cf. Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 33, 4, and Hier., De viris ill., c. 75. 

3 Adv. Rufin., i. 8 ; al. 4 De viris ill., c. 17. 
5 Apol., i. ii. 6 Hier., Adv. Ruf., i. Q. 


evil could not have been created by God, that the Logos could not 
take a human body, that the body could not rise again. In the 
fourth dialogue he interrupts for a while the discussion with Marinus, 
in order to dispute with Droserius and Valens, followers of Valentinian, 
concerning the origin of evil. The Christian disputants had chosen as 
arbiter Eutropius, a learned heathen philosopher; he considers him 
self obliged to yield the palm of victory to Adamantius. The author 
of these dialogues is evidently very well-skilled in dialectic and theo 
logy. Zahn has shown by a comparison of the Greek with the Latin 
text that in general the latter, though a translation, represents with 
fidelity the original work, while very plainly the Greek text has been 
worked over quite thoroughly. Internal evidence shows that the work 
was composed about 300 3 1 3 ; the revision must have taken place 
between 330 and 337. The author can no longer be recognized, but 
it is probable that he lived at or near Antioch. The erroneous 
attribution of the work to Origen, accepted by Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nazianzus 1 , is owing to a confusion of the Church s 
theological protagonist with the author of the dialogue. Very pro 
bably, indeed, the latter meant to indicate by the name Adamantius 
no other but Origen (cf. 39, i). At the same time his inten 
tion was to put forth the famous Alexandrine only as sponsor for 
the doctrine of the dialogue, not to designate him as the author of 
the work. 

The Greek text has come down in seven (according to von Bakhuyzen] 
codices that go back to a single archetype. The editio princeps is that 
of J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674, reprinted in later editions of Origen (Migne, 
PG.. xi. 17111884). The Latin version was first published by C. P. 
Caspari, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, Christiania, 1883, i. 1 129 (cf. iii iv). 
For further details see Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1887 1888), 
ix. 193 239, and Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 419426. 
There is a new edition by W. H. van dc Sande Bakhuyzen, Leipzig, 1901, 
in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. 

46. The Didascalia apostolorum. 

Even before the Apostolic Church-Ordinance ( 42) had been 
adopted in Egypt, there circulated in Syria or Palestine a pseudo- 
apostolic work of similar character, but much larger in size. Its 
subject-matter was, likewise, Christian morality, the constitution of 
the Church, and Christian discipline. The original Greek text has 
apparently perished. In 1854 P. de Lagarde edited an ancient 
Syriac version, and recently Hauler has made known notable frag 
ments of an early Latin version. These fragments confirm the con 
clusion of Funk that in general the Syriac version, apart from its 
peculiar division into chapters, faithfully represents the original Greek. 
The title (lacking in the Latin version) reads in Syriac: Didascalia, 

1 Philocal. Orig. c. 24, 8. 


i. e. the Catholic Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles and holy disciples 
of our Redeemer . It opens with general exhortatory advice to Christ 
ians (c. I in Syriac) and more particularly to those in certain states, 
especially married persons (cc. 2 3). Then follow provisions con 
cerning the qualifications for the office of bishop, his duties and his 
rights (cc. 4 9), on lawsuits among Christians (cc. 10 n), on the 
liturgical assemblies (cc. 12 13), on widows, deacons and deacones 
ses (cc. 14 1 6), on the care of the poor and in particular of 
orphans (cc. 17 18), on the martyrs (cc. 19 20), on fasting (c. 21), 
on the discipline of children (c. 22). The last chapters contain a 
warning against heresies (cc. 23 25) and against Jewish or Judaiz- 
ing practices (c. 26). There is no inner cohesion between the 
chapters; even in each chapter the thought of the writer does not 
progress in an orderly way. According to c. 24 the work was 
composed by the Apostles at Jerusalem , on the occasion of the 
apostolic council and during the first days after the same. Funk 
has shown that it was written in Syria or Palestine during the first 
half of the third century. The sources at the disposition of the 
writer were the Holy Scriptures (in c. 7 he even quotes the story of 
the woman taken in adultery, John vii. 53 to viii. n), the Didache, 
the collection of the Ignatian Epistles , the Dialogue of Justin the 
Martyr, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, the fourth book of the 
Sibylline Oracles, and perhaps the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. The 
work was highly esteemed and much used in Syria and Palestine. 
Early in the fifth century it was worked over in Syria at considerable 
length, and took its actual shape in the first six books of the Apo 
stolic Constitutions (75, i). 

The Syriac version was edited from a codex of the ninth or tenth 
century by P. Botticher (P. dc Lagardc), Didascalia Apostolorum syriace, 
Leipzig, 1854. At the same time, in the work of Chr. C. J. Bunsen, 
Analecta Ante-Nicaena, London, 1854, ii, Botticher undertook to recon 
struct the original Greek of the Didascalia (225 338: Didascalia purior). 
For this purpose he used the Syriac version and the first six books of the 
Apostolic Constitutions ; the six books were so printed as to distinguish by 
different kinds of type the original text from the additions to it (45 2245. 
In many details, however, both these recensions of Botticher are untrust 
worthy- cf. Funk, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen , Rottenburg, 1891, 
pp. 40 50. On Didascaliae apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia Latina 
ed. E. Hauler, Leipzig, 1900, i, see Funk, 1. c. , pp. 2875. For tne 
dependence of the Didascalia on the Didache see C. Holzhcy, in Compte 
rendu du IV e Congres scientifique internat. des Catholiques, Fribourg 
(vSwitzerland), 1898, Section I, 249277; on its relations to the Ignatian 
Epistles see Holzhey , in TheoJ. Quartalschr. (1898), Ixxx. 380396. 
F. X. Funk, La date de la Didascalie des Apotres, in Revue d histoire 
ecclesiastique (1901), ii. 798 809; here he assigns it to the second half 
of the third century. P. Corssen , Zur lateinischen Didascalia Aposto 
lorum, in Zeitschr. fur neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1900), i. 339343. 
In the Canoniste Contemporain (1900 1902) F. Nau gives a French 


version of the Didascalia (reprinted, Paris, 1902). A. Jakoby , Ein bisher 
unbeachteter apokrypher Bericht iiber die Taufe Jesu, nebst Beitragen 
zur Geschichte der Didascalia der zwolf Apostel, und Erlauterungen zu 
den Darstelhmgen der Taufe Jesu, Straftburg, 1902; C. Holzhey , Dio- 
nysius der Grofte und die Didascalia, in Theol.-praktische Monatschr. 
(1901), xi. 515523; cf. 40, 4. The Didascalia Apostolorum, edited 
from a Mesopotamian manuscript with various readings and collations from 
other mss. by M. Dunlop Gibson, I: Syriac text; II: an English version 
(Horae Semiticae), Cambridge, 1903. See the critique of Funk, in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1903), Ixxxv. 195 202. A. Baumstark , Die Urgestalt der 
arabischen Didascalia der Apostel, in Oriens Christianus (1903), pp. 201 
to 208. For a German translation and commentary see Achelis and Flem- 
ming, Die syrische Didascalia, iibersetzt und erklart, in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, Leipzig, 1904, x, 2, vm 388. Funk has also published what 
will in all likelihood ever remain the standard edition of the Didascalia 
et Constitutiones Apostolorum , 2 voll., Paderborn, 1905. 

47. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder- Worker). 

I. HIS LIFE. In his panegyric on Origen (cc. 5 6) St. Gregory 
gives us reliable information concerning his own early life. Other 
details are gathered from Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. Jerome, 
Rufinus and other writers. His life in Greek by St. Gregory of 
Nyssa * is of little historical value because of its highly legendary 
character. Untrustworthy, too, is an ancient anonymous life in 
Syriac, that has come down to us in a sixth-century manuscript, 
and is in its contents very closely related to the Greek life. Both 
these lives may go back to an earlier Greek original (Ryssel), or 
both may represent the same stage of oral tradition (Koetschau). 
Gregory, in youth called Theodore 2 , was born about 213 at Neo- 
caesarea in Pontus, of a very noble heathen family. He devoted 
himself to the study of rhetoric and Roman law. In order to 
perfect themselves in the latter study, both he and his younger 
brother Athenodorus were on the point of entering the law schools 
of Berytus in Phoenicia, when domestic circumstances altered per 
force their resolution, and they betook themselves to Csesarea in 
Palestine. Here, very probably in 233, they became acquainted with 
Origen, and were fascinated by his teaching. Gradually all thought 
of Berytus and jurisprudence vanished from the minds of the im 
pressionable youths. They clung thenceforth to the admirable teacher 
who had won them over to the studies of philosophy and theology, 
and at the same time converted them to Jesus Christ. Eusebius 
tells us 3 that Gregory and his brother spent five years at Caesarea. 
On their separation from Origen, in 238, the former delivered a 
public panegyric or formal profession of gratitude in the presence of 

1 Migne, PG., xlvi. 893-958- 2 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 30. 3 Ib. 


his master 1 . Shortly afterwards they were both made bishops in 
Pontus 2 ; Gregory in particular, became the first bishop of his native 
city of Neoc^esarea. The two biographies already referred relate 
a long series of miraculous happenings, to which Gregory owes his 
later title of Wonder-Worker (o ftaufjLatoupfOQ). This very early growth 
of legend testifies more forcibly than any historical document could 
to his uncommonly superior personality and his far-reaching successful 
labors. Gregory and Athenodorus took part in the Antiochene synod 
(264 265) that condemned Paul of Samosata 3 ; they may also have 
been present at the two following synods held for the same purpose 4 . 
Suidas says 5 that Gregory died in the reign of Aurelian (270 275). 
Before his death he had completely converted his native city, and all 
Pontus continued to reverence his memory 6 . 

The Syriac biography of Gregory was first published in a German 
version by V. Ryssel } in Theol. Zeitschr. aus der Schweiz (1894), xi. 228 
to 254. Later, the Syriac text was published from the same codex, by 
P. Bedjan, in Acta martyrum et sanctorum (1896), vi. 83 106. For the 
relations between the Greek and Syriac text see P. Koetschau, in Zeitschr. 
fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1898), xli. 211 250, and H. Hilgcnfeld, ib., 
452 456. For the latest researches on the life of Gregory cf. Ryssel, 
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Leipzig, 1880, pp. i 22, and Koetschau, in his 
edition of the Panegyric on Origen , Freiburg, 1894 (Sammlung ausgew. 
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellenschriften 9), pp. v xxi. 

2. LITERARY LABORS. - - Taken up with pastoral cares, Gregory 
wrote but little, as far as we know; what remains from his pen is 
mostly of an occasional character, and was called forth by practical 
needs. However, even in antiquity the labors of others were attributed 
to him and sometimes with fraudulent purpose. 

The collected writings of Gregory were first edited by G. Voss, Mainz, 
1604; then by Fronton du Due, Paris, 1622. They are in Gallandi, Bibl. 
vet. Patr. iii. 377 469 (cf. iii. Proleg. , xxv xxix; xiv. app. 119), and in 
Migne, PG. , x. 963 1232. Several writings and fragments, partly un 
known, have been recently edited by P. de Lagarde and P. Martin, from 
Syriac and Armenian sources; they bear the name of Gregory, and an 
account of those printed before 1880 may be read in the careful study of 
Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus (cf. additional material in Jahrb. f. protest. 
Theol. 1881, vii. 565 sq.). There is an English translation of the literary remains 
of Gregory by Sahnond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 9 74. 

3. GENUINE WORKS. - The following works may and ought to 
be recognized as genuine writings : a) The Panegyric on Origen, deliver 
ed at Caesarea in 238, at the time of his leave-taking. It is entitled 
in the editions 7 : SIQ Qptfiwqv 7Zf)OG<pcovrjTLy.bc, xa} Tiavyfupixb^ /.oyoQ, 
but is called by the author (c. 3, 31; 4, 40) AO^OQ yaptaTypioQ, or 
discourse of thanksgiving . The thanks of the speaker are directed 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 65. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 30. 

3 Ib., vii. 28, i. 4 Ib., vii. 28, 2. 5 Lexicon, s. v. Gregor. 

r> Basil. M., De Spir. Sancto, c. 29, 74. 7 Migne, PG., x. 1049 1104. 



first to God, the Giver of all good, then to the guardian angel who 
accompanied Gregory and Athenodorus to Csesarea, and finally to 
the great teacher who inspired both with a love for (Christian) philo 
sophy. A strong current of living and affectionate emotion pulsates 
through the entire discourse. Its diction is comparatively pure and 
noble, in spite of "a certain straining after rhetorical effect, b) The 
Creed of Gregory (sx&emQ rye, mffrscj^J *. According to the legendary 
life by St. Gregory of Nyssa 2 this formula of faith was revealed to him 
in a vision by the Apostle John, at the command of the Mother of 
God. Caspari has shown that it was composed between 260 and 270. 
It is a brief but clear and precise exposition of the Christian doctrine 
of the Trinity, c) The so-called Canonical Epistle (intaroM] xavovcxy ; 
with the scholia of the canonists Balsamon and Zonaras) 3 . It was 
written to solve the doubts of a bishop as to the proper treatment of 
those Christians who had been guilty of infractions of Christian discipline 
and morality during the raids of the Goths and Boradi (Borani) into 
Pontus and Bithynia. The document is of importance first for the 
history of ancient ecclesiastical discipline, then as affording evidence 
of the mildness and tact of Gregory. Draseke thinks it was com 
posed in the autumn of 254. d) The Metaphrase of Ecclesiastes 
(perdypamQ sl^ rbv ixxhjmaarqv HO^O/JLW^TOQJ 4 , a paraphrastic ren 
dering of the Greek text of the sacred book. The manuscripts 
usually attribute it to St. Gregory of Nazianzus, but St. Jerome 5 
and Rufinus 6 declare it to be a work of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
e) The work To Theopompus on the divine incapacity and capa 
city of suffering , extant in Syriac only, a philosophical colloquy as 
to whether the divine immunity from suffering carries with it neces 
sarily an indifference to the affairs of mankind. The contents of 
this work suggest no reason to doubt its genuineness; it was pro 
bably composed before his consecration as bishop of Neocsesarea. 
Theopompus, otherwise unknown, is described (c. 6) as a follower 
of Isocrates, whom Draseke identifies with Socrates, a Gnostic 
and a Marcionite-. The latter taught that from all eternity God 
was essentially in a state of absolute quietude and nowise con 
cerned himself about mankind, f) Lost writings, especially a dialogue 
with ^Elianus (npbz Alhavbv dtdX^iq) intended to win over the latter 
to the Christian faith; it seems to have dwelt particularly on the 
Christian teaching concerning God 8; also some lost epistolae* of 
which we have no further knowledge. 

1 Migne, PG., x. 983988. 

2 Greg. Nyss., Vita S. Thaumat. ; Migne, PG., xlvi 909 ff 
Migne, PG., x. 1019-1048. * Ib., x. 987-1018 
De viris ill., c. 65; Comm. in Eccl. ad iv. 13 ff. 

6 Hist. eccl. Eus., vii. 25. 

" Dial, de recta in Deum fide, sect, i ; Migne, PG., xi. 1729. 
Basil. Magn., Ep. 210, 5. o Hier ^ De viris m ; c 


a) The Discourse of Thanksgiving has reached us only by means of 
the manuscripts in which it is joined to the work of Origen against Celsus 
( 39 6 ). For excellent separate editions we are indebted to y. A. Bengel, 
Stuttgart, 1722, and P. Koetschau. A German version of the Panegyric, the 
Creed and the Canonical Epistle was made by J. Margraf, Kempten, 1875 
(Bibl. der Kirchenvater). - - b) The Creed has come down to us in Greek 
through a work of Gregory of Nyssa (1. c.), and in many manuscripts ; we 
possess it also in a Syriac version and in two early Latin versions, one by 
Rufinus of Aquileja, the other anonymous. For all these texts and an 
exhaustive demonstration of the genuineness and integrity of this Creed 
see C. P. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols 
und der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1879, PP- 164. The Syriac text is 
also in Pitra , Analecta sacra (1883), iv. 81 345 f. -- c) The Canonical 
Epistle is found in Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2) iii. 251 283; in Pitra, 
luris eccles. Graecorum historia et monumenta, Rome, 1864, i. 562 566, 
and in Drdseke , Jahrb. f. protest. Theologie (1881), vii. 724 756. - 
d) For the Metaphrase of Ecclesiastes cf. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 
pp. 27 29. - - e) The work To Theopompus is printed, in P. de La- 
garde, Analecta Syriaca, Leipzig and London, pp. 46 64, from a Syriac 
codex of the sixth century; a German version is given by Ryssel, 1. c., 
pp. 71 99 (cf. pp. 118 124 137 f. 150 157). Another edition of the 
Syriac text is that of P. Martin, in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 103120 
363 376. Cf. Drdseke, Gesammelte Patrist. Untersuchungen, Altona and 
Leipzig, 1889, pp. 162 1 68. -- f) The Arabic fragment of a Sermo de 
Trinitate (Migne, PG., x. 1123 1126; Ryssel, 1. c., 43 46), in which Mai 
thought he saw a fragment of the dialogue with /Elianus, is spurious. 

4. DUBIOUS WORKS. Other writings or fragments await a more 
thorough study of their contents and character: a) The brief treatise 
on the soul addressed to Tatian (/Jrfoc, xspaAauodqQ xepl <p J 7Jj 
Tipoc, Tanavuv) 1 . It discusses the existence and nature of the soul, 
and expressly prescinds from scriptural proof. In modern times it 
has been customary to look on it as spurious, even as of mediaeval 
origin. Recently a Syriac version has been discovered in a codex of 
the seventh century; it is also possible that Procopius of Gaza (about 
465 528) cites the Greek text as a work of our Gregory, b) We owe 
to P. Martin the knowledge of five homilies, preserved only in Armenian 
and attributed to Gregory. They are : Homilia in nativitatem Christi. 
Sermo de incarnatione , Laus S. Dei genitricis et semper Virginis 
Mariae, Panegyricus sermo in S. Dei genitricem et semper Virginem 
Mariam, Sermo panegyricus in honorem S. Stephani protomartyris. 
The last four are certainly products of a much later age. Loofs 
concedes the first to be a genuine work of Gregory, moved by- 
numerous points of contact with the work To Theopompus. 
Conybeare translated into English, also from the Armenian, a sixth 
homily, and holds it to be a genuine discourse of Gregory, c) A multi 
tude of loose fragments, mostly spurious and insignificant; here and 
there, however, a genuine phrase may lie hidden among them. 

1 Mig?ie, PG., x. 1137 1146. 


a) See A. Smith Lewis, in Studia Sinaitica, London, 1894, i. 19 26, 
for a Syriac version of the treatise on the soul. It lacks only the intro 
duction; the codex is of the seventh century. A German version is given 
by Ryssely in Rhein. Mus. f. Philol., new series (1896), li. 4 9, cf. 318320. 
The "testimony of Procopius is treated by Draseke, in Zeitschr. fiir wissen- 
schaftl. Theol. (1896), xxxix. 166 169, and Zttr Gregor von Neocaesareas 
Schrift iiber die Seele, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1901), xliv. 
87 100. b) The five Armenian homilies are in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 
134 145 156 169 (Armenian); 386396 404 412 (Latin). Cf. Loofs, 
in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1884), pp. 551- 553. The Armenian homily was 
translated into English by F. C. Conybeare , in The Expositor (1896), i. 
161 173. S. Haidacher , Zu den Homilien des Gregorius von Antiochia 
tind des Gregorius Thaumaturgus, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol. (1901), xxv. 
367 369. -- c) For the scattered fragments of the writings of Gregory 
see Ryssel s Gregorius Thaumaturgus, pp. 43 59, and for the Greek and 
Syriac fragments, in particular, see Pitra, 1. c., iii. 589 595; iv. 133 386, 
and Loofs, 1. c., 550 f. 

5. SPURIOUS WORKS. A number of works have been erroneously 
attributed to Gregory, a) The Syriac work To Philagrius on con- 
substantiality is simply, as was seen by Draseke, the Letter npbq 
E jdfpiov fjLOva%bv ^spl $0rjyn>, published among the works of St. Gre 
gory of Nazianzus 1 and St. Gregory of Nyssa 2 , and probably not 
written before 350400. b) The Sectional Confession of Faith, y xard 
/jtlpoQ xlffrtQ 3 , an exposition of doctrine concerning the Blessed Trinity 
and the Incarnation of the Son, is not a work of Gregory. Caspari has 
proved that it was composed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (about 380), 
and circulated by the Apollinarists under the safe cover of Gregory s 
reputation, c) The Twelve Chapters on Faith , xspdlata xepl nla-sctx; 
dcodsxa*. This little work proposes to expound the orthodox faith 
concerning the Incarnation. It is anti-Apollinarist (cc. 10 n) and 
was probably not written before the end of the fourth century. 
d) Five Greek homilies three on the Annunciation 5 , one on Epi 
phany 6 and one on the Feast of All Saints 7 - - are all spurious. 

a) The Syriac text of the work To Philagrius is found in de Lagarde, 
Anal. Syr. pp. 43-46, and Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 100103. A German 
version is given in Ryssely Gregorius Thaumaturgus, pp. 65 70 (cf. pp. 100 
to 118 135 ft". 147 ff.), and a Latin version in Pitra, 1. c., iv. 360 363. 
For the origin of that work see (in opposition to Ryssely in Jahrb. fur 
protest. Theol. [1881], vii. 565 573) Draseke, Gesammelte Patrist. Unter- 
suchungen (1889), pp. 103162. b) The Sectional Confession of 

Faith may also be found in de Lagarde s Edition of the Greek work of 
Titus Bostrensis Against the Manichaeans, Berlin, 1859, pp. 103 113. 
For a literal Syriac version see de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, pp. 31 -42, 
and Pitra, I. c. , iv. 8293 346356 (Syriac and Latin). Cf. Caspari, 
Alte und neue Quellen, pp. 65146. -- c) For fragments of a Syriac 

1 Migne, PG., xxxvii. 383. 2 Ib., xlvi. 1 101 1108. 

3 Ib., x. 11031124. * Ib., x. 11271136. 

5 Ib., x. 11451178. e Ib ; x II77 _ I190> 

7 Ib., x. 1197 1206. 


version of the Twelve Chapters etc. cf. de Lagarde , 1. c. , pp. 65 67, 
and Pitra , 1. c., iv. 95 100 357 360. Concerning these Chapters 
consult (against Drdseke, 1. c. pp. 78 102) Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Ab- 
handlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), " 3 2 9 33 8 ; ^ r - Lauchert , in 
Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii. 395 418. -- d) The first of the Five 
Homilies is extant also in Syriac (Pitra, 1. c., iv. 122 127 377381) and 
in Armenian (ib., pp. 145 150 396 400), the second also in Armenian 
(ib., pp. 150156 400404); there is also (ib., pp. 127133 381386) 
a Syriac text of the fourth homily. The arguments of Drdseke, in Jahrb. 
fiir protest. Theol. (1884), x. 657 ff., in favor of the authorship of Apol- 
linaris of Laodicea for the first two and the fourth homilies are not 

6. ATHENODORUS. - - In his Sacra Parallela St. John Damascene attri 
butes without further identification three fragments of a work irepl ejJpaifffiou 
to a certain Athenodorus. It may have been written by Athenodorus, the 
brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Cf. K. Holl, in Texte und Unter 
suchungen, xx, new series (1899), v - 2 > l6 i- 

7. FIRMILIAN OF c^ESAREA (Cappadocia). -- About the middle of the 
third century he appears as one of the most highly esteemed bishops of 
the East (Em., Hist, eccl, vii. 30, 35). His death is placed in 269. We 
have from his pen a long letter to St. Cyprian of Carthage relative to the 
Western controversy concerning the baptism of heretics, in a Latin version. 
It is printed among the letters of Cyprian (no. 75, ed. Hartel, ii. 810 to 
827). In this letter he gives his unreserved approval to the position of 
St. Cyprian, declares invalid all baptism by heretics, and denounces with 
passionate invective the judgment of Pope Stephen. J. Ernst has shown, 
in Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theol. (1894), xviii. 209259; (1896), xx. 364367, 
that it is impossible to defend the interpolation-hypothesis put forward by 
O. Ritschl , in Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 
Gottingen, 1885, pp. 126 134. St. Basil the Great mentions (De Spir. 
Sancto, cc. 29 74) other works (AOYOI) ofFirmilian. Cf. B. Bossue, in Acta 
SS. Oct. (1867), xii. 470510. 

48. St. Methodius of Olympus. 

I. HIS LIFE. It is hidden in almost complete obscurity. In his 
Church History, Eusebius does not honor with a mention this enemy 
of Origen. We know only that he was bishop of Olympus in Lycia 
and that he died about 311 a martyr s death in the persecution of 
Maximinus Daza 1 . The rumor in St. Jerome 2 that he was at first 
bishop of Olympus and was then translated to Tyre (in Phoenicia), 
also the later tradition in Leontius of Byzantium 3 that he was bishop 
of Patara (in Lycia), are apparently the results of a misunderstanding. 

A. Pankow, Methodius, Bischof von Olympus, in Katholik (1887), ii. 
i 28 113142 225 250 (reprint, Mainz, 1888). Concerning the episcopal 
see of Methodius see Th. Zahn , in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1885 to 
1886), viii. 15 20. C. G. Lundberg, Methodius, biskop of Olympos, en 
Studie i de fornicenska patristiken, Stockholm, 1901. 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 83; cf. Socr., Hist, eccl, vi. 13. 

2 L. c. 3 De sectis, iii. i. 


2. WRITINGS OF METHODIUS. - - Unlike St. Gregory Thaumat- 
urgus Methodius considered that literary labors were one of the most 
important phases of his life-work. Of his writings, however, only 
one has reached us in its complete Greek text. Others have come 
down, in abbreviated shape, through an Old-Slavonic version of the 
eleventh century. Though diffuse, he is judged by St. Jerome 1 to 
be a pleasing and elegant writer. He is remarkable for formal beauty 
of diction and delights in imitating Plato , even to the choice of 
dialogue as the medium of his thoughts. His dogmatic-historical im 
portance is principally due to his energetic and successful fight against 

His writings, entire and fragmentary, were collected by Fr. Combefis, 
Paris, 1644; they are reprinted in Gallandi , Bibl. vet. Patr. (1767), iii. 
663 832 (cf. Proleg., li. liv.), and in Migne, PG., xviii. 9408, also in 
A. Jahn, S. Methodii opera et S. Methodius platonizans, Halle, 1865. 
A German version of the Old-Slavonic Corptis Methodianum and a new 
edition of most of the Greek fragments were made by G. N. Bonwetsch, 
Methodius von Olympus, i: Schriften, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1891. There 
is an English translation of the works of Methodius by W. R. Clark , in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 309 402. See Preuschen , in 
Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 468 478; G. Fritschel, Methodius 
von Olympus und seine Philosophic (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1879. L. Atz- 
berger, Gesch. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit, 
Freiburg, 1896, pp. 469490; G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Theologie des Metho 
dius von Olympus untersucht (Abhandlungen der k. - Gesellschaft der 
Wissensch. zu Gottingen), Berlin, 1903. 

3. WORKS OF METHODIUS IN GREEK. - - The Banquet or on 
Virginity (auunumov r/ Ttspl a^siaQj 2 is an imitation of the Ban- 
quet of Plato. The virgin Gregorium relates to the author Eubulius 
(i. e. Methodius) the story of a banquet in the gardens of Arete at 
which ten virgins glorify chastity in lengthy discourses upon that sub 
ject. At the end Thecla, the eighth speaker, to whom Arete had given 
the prize, intones a hymn to the bridegroom Christ and to His bride 
the Church. The dialogue of Methodius on the Freedom of the 
will faspl TO~J atJTSsoufflouj is almost completely extant in the original 
Greek. We have already mentioned ( 33, 6) a very important frag 
ment; there is extant also a somewhat defective version in Old-Slavonic. 
In this work an orthodox Christian attacks the Gnostic dualism and 
determinism represented by two followers of Valentinian. He denies 
the eternity of matter as a principle of evil ; the latter is rather the 
result of the free will of rational creatures. The Greek text of the 
prolix dialogue, in three books, on the Resurrection, originally per 
haps entitled A?Xao<pa>v % xepi dvaffraffsco^ has mostly perished; some 
fragments of the original are yet extant. There exists, however, in 
31d-Slavonic, a complete version, save that the second and third books 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 83. * Migne, PG., xviii. 27220: 


have suffered abbreviation. The scene of the dialogue is at Patara, 
in the house of the physician Aglaophon ; the subject of the dis 
cussion is the problem whether after death this body will rise again 
to incorruptibility (I, I, 8). Aglaophon and Proclus side with Origen 
in denying the identity of the risen body with that of our present 
state, while Eubulius (Methodius) and Memianus defend the ecclesia 
stical teaching. Methodius 1 was unable to finish this work on the 
lines of his original plan ; it merited and enjoyed, nevertheless, the 
esteem of many. 

The Banquet was first edited by L. Allatius, Rome, 1656. E. Carel, 
S. Methodii Patarensis convivium decem virginum (These), Paris, 1880. On 
the hymn at the end of the Banquet cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. 
Liter. (2) pp. 653 697. For the dialogue on Free Will in Greek and 
Slavonic (also a German version) cf. Bonwetsch, \. c., pp. i 62 , cf xiv xxii. 
The dialogue on the Resurrection is found ib., pp. 70 283; cf. xxiii xxx. 
349. Syriac fragments of this dialogue are printed in Pitra, Analecta sacra, 
iv. 201205 434438. 

dialogues on Free Will and the Resurrection there are four other 
tractates in the Old-Slavonic Corpus Methodianum: On life and 
rational activity (De vita), an exhortation to contentment with the 
present life and to hope for the future; .On the difference of foods 
and the young cow mentioned in Leviticus (rather in Numb, xix) 
(De cibis), an allegorico- typical interpretation of the food-ordinances 
of the Old Testament and the law of the sacrifice of the red cow 
(see 39, 14) addressed to two women, Frenope and Kilonia; To 
Sistelius on leprosy (De lepra), a dialogue between Eubulius (Metho 
dius) and Sistelius on the spiritual sense of the legislation concerning 
leprosy in Lev. xiii ; On the bloodsucker mentioned in Proverbs, 
and on the words the heavens shew forth the glory of God (De 
sawguisuga), an exposition of Prov. xxx. 1 5 ff. (cf. xxiv. 50 ff.) and 
Ps. xviii. 2 (Septuagint). It was addressed to a certain Eustachius. 

The Old-Slavonic text of these tractates is given in a German version 
by Bonwetsch, 1. c. The Greek fragments of the work on leprosy printed 
by Bonwetsch (pp. 311 325) prove conclusively that the Slavonic text has 
been abbreviated and mutilated. For the contents of these treatises see 
Abhandlgn., Al. v. Ottingen zum 70. Geburtstag gevvidmet, Munich, 1898, 
PP- 2953. 

5. LOST WRITINGS. - - In the De sanguisuga (10, 4) Methodius 
announces to his friend Eustachius a work On the body. St. Jerome 
mentions 2 four works that no longer .exist: Adversum Porpkyriunt 
libri, an extensive refutation of the fifteen books written against the 
Christians by that Neoplatonist philosopher 3 ; Adversus Origenem de 

1 De cibis, c. i, i. 2 De viris ill., c. 83. 

;{ //?/-., Ep. 48, 13; 70, 3; al. 


pythonissa, or on the Witch of Endor, in opposition to the homily 
of Origen on the same subject ( 39, 4); In Genesim et In Canticum 
canticorum commentarii. Theodoret of Cyrus mentions 1 a discourse 
on the martyrs* (nsp\ rtov napT jpcov Ai rfoq). It is probable that the 
dialogue entitled Xenon, mentioned by Socrates 2 is identical with the 
work On created things (nepi TWV ^svTjTwv) t fragments of which 
have been preserved by Photius 3 , against the work of Origen On 
the eternity of the world defended, as it seems, by Xenon. Some 
fragments of the scholia of Methodius on the book of Job are met 
with in the Catenae. 

For the fragments of the work against Porphyry see Bomvetsch, 1. c., 
pp. 345 348. To the same work must belong the pretended excerpta tria 
ex homilia S. Methodii de cruce et passione Christi, in Migne , PG. , xviii. 
397 404. See Preuschen , 1. c. , i. 478, for the fragments of the com 
mentary on Genesis and the Canticle of canticles. Two sentences of the 
work On the Martyrs* are printed in Bonwetsch, 1. c., p. 349. Cf. ib., 
pp. 349 354, the fullest collection of the scholia on Job. 

6. SPURIOUS WORKS. - The orations De Simeone et Anna*, In 
ramos palmarum 5 and In ascensionem Domini Nostri lesu Christi. 
are spurious; the last exists only in Armenian and in a fragmen 
tary state. 

The last of these orations is found in Pitra , Analecta sacra, iv. 
207209 439441. 


49. General Considerations. 

As early as the third century the ecclesiastical literature of the 
West exhibits certain native peculiarities. Its organ is the Latin, not 
the Greek tongue, and a distinctly Roman spirit dominates its contents. 

There reigns throughout its products a sober and practical spirit. 

The idealism of the Greek writings, their tendency to speculation and 
dialectic are not entirely foreign to .this Latin Christian literature; 
yet its direct purpose is the immediately necessary or useful. Withal, 
it exhibits versatility and variety in a degree that almost astonishes 
the reader. Owing to the circumstances of the times the apologetic 
element is supreme. In the writings of Tertullian and in the (Greek) 
writings of Hippolytus anti-heretical polemic abounds. Exegesis is 
represented chiefly by Hippolytus and Victorinus of Pettau. Com- 
modianus leads the procession of Christian poets in the Latin tongue. 
is worthy of note that the Western writers are few, and that of 
the small number the majority comes from Northern Africa. 


; opp. ed. Schnltze, iv. 55. 2 Hist ecd ^ yj 


50. Tertullian. 

1. HIS LIFE. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born, 
it is usually believed, about the year 160 at Carthage, where his 
father was serving as a centurion (centurio proconsularis) in the service 
of the proconsul of Africa 1 . He received an excellent academic 
training and probably entered upon the career of an advocate 2 . 
There are in the Pandects some excerpts from the writings of a jurist 
Tertullian (Quaestianum libri viii, De castrensi peculio) whom many 
historians are inclined to identify with our ecclesiastical writer About 
193, certainly before 197, he became a Christian, was ordained also a 
priest according to St. Jerome 3 , and began a long literary career in 
the service of the new faith. About midway in his life (ca. 202) he 
openly joined the sect of the Montanists, and began to attack the 
Catholic Church with a violence scarcely inferior to that which he 
had manifested against heathenism. Within the Montanist fold he 
founded a special sect known as Tertullianists 4 . He is said to have 
lived to a very advanced age 5 . 

C. E. Frcppd, Tertullien, 2 voll., Paris, 1864; 3. ed. 1886. F. Boh- 
ringer, Die Kirche Christ! und ihre Zeugen, 2. ed., iii. iv: Die lateinisch- 
afrikanische Kirche. Tertullianus, Cypriantis (Stuttgart, 1864); 2. ed. 1873. 
A. Hauck, Tertullians Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. & Noldechen, 
Tertullian, Gotha, 1890. Cf. Noldechen, Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften 
Tertullians, Leipzig, 1888 (Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 2). In these two 
books Noldechen collected the results of investigations previously published 
in several theological and historical reviews. -- Schanz , Geschichte der 
rom. Literatur (1896), iii. 240 302. P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de 
1 Afrique chretienne. I: Tertullien, Paris, 1901. H. Kellner and G. Esscr, 
in Kirchenlexikon, 2. ed., xi. 1389 1426. -- On the Jurist Tertullian cf. 
Schanz, 1. c., iii. 182. 

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. - Tertullian is the most prolific of 
all the Latin writers; he is also the most original and personal. 
Ebert says well that perhaps no author has ever more fully justified 
than Tertullian the phrase of BufTon that the style is the man; for 
there never was a man that spoke more from his heart. He lives 
habitually in an atmosphere of conflict with others and with himself. 
He is quite conscious of this weakness. Unhappy me! he cries 
out on one occasion, always burning with the fever of im 
patience - - miser rimus ego semper iiror caloribus impatientiae 6 . 
All his .extant writings, it may be said, are polemical. They fall 
easily into three groups : apologetic, in defence of Christianity or 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 53. 2 Eus.. Hist, eccl., ii. 2, 4. 

3 De viris ill., c. 53. 4 Aug., De haer., c. 86. 

5 Hier., \. c. : fertur vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem. 

6 De pat. c. I. 

12 * 


against heathenism and Judaism; dogmatico-polemic, in refutation 
of heresy in general and of certain heretics; practico-ascetical, dealing 
with various questions of Christian morality and discipline. Even in 
these writings the polemical element, or a highly personal note, is 
always present, whether he writes as a Catholic carried away with 
holy zeal yet harshly rigoristic, or as a Montanist overflowing with 
passionate rage against the pretended laxity of the Catholic Church. 
Tertullian is ever a powerful adversary, a man of burning eloquence, 
biting satire, compact and forcible logic. As a rule he over-shoots 
the mark , and fails to attain his immediate purpose *. As a writer 
he is without moderation, contemptuous of all compromise, proving 
frequently more than is needed; the reader is carried away rather 
than persuaded by his argument; he is hushed by the fine display 
of wit, but remains unconvinced and antagonistic. 

In expression Tertullian is concise and bold, solid and rugged, 
involved and obscure. He has no sense for beauty of form; he 
deliberately scoffs at the refined diction of a Minucius Felix ( 24). 
He seizes with pleasure on popular expressions; in a moment of 
embarrassment he is daringly creative and suddenly enriches the 
vocabulary of the Latin tongue. The theology of the Western 
Christians is indebted to him for many of its technical terms. 

The manuscript tradition of the writings of Tertullian is very im 
perfect. Only the Apologeticum has come down in numerous codices, 
some of them quite ancient; a whole series of his other writings has 
been preserved only through the Codex Agobardinus (Parisiensis) of the 
ninth century. The works De baptismo, De ieiunio and De pudicitia 
are now without any manuscript evidence or guarantee. His writings, 
as far as we possess them, must have appeared between 195 and 218. 
For each of them the actual date is doubtful or much disputed; 
there are no certain points of comparison. However, it is usually 
possible to say whether a given work belongs to his Catholic or his 
Montanist period. 

For the manuscripts of the writings of Tertullian see Preuschen , in 
Harnack y Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 675-677, and E. Kroymann, 
Die Tertullian-Uberlieferung in Italian, Wien, 1898 (Sitzungsberichte der 
phil.-histor. Kl. der kgl. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Wien, cxxxviii. 
Complete editions of his works were published by B. Rhenanus, Basle, 
1521, and often since (cf. A. Horawitz, in the above-mentioned Sitzungs- 
benchten, 1872, Ixxi. 662674); J. Pamelius, Antwerp., 1579; N. Rigaltius, 
Pans, 1634; y. S. Semler, Halle, 17691776, 6 voll. ; Migne, PL., Paris, 
1844, i. ii.; Fr. Ohler, Leipzig, 1851 1854, 3 voll., and also (editio 
minor) Leipzig, 1854 (cf. Klussmann, in Zeitschr. fur wissensch. Theol. 
[1860], m. 82-100, 363 393, and Ohler, ib. [1861], iv. 204211). An 
ition corresponding to modern scientific needs and conditions was under 
taken by A. Reifferscheid, and continued after his death (1887) by G. Wis- 

1 De virg. vel., c. i. 

$ 50. TERTULLIAN. iSl 

sowa: Pars I, Vienna, 1890 (Corpus scriptorum eccl. Lat. , xx.). Cf. W- 
von Hartel , Patristische Studien, Wien, 1890, i. iv. (reprint from the 
just-mentioned Wiener Sitzungsberichten , cxx. cxxi.). For other contri 
butions to the textual criticism of Tertullian cf. M. Klussmann , Curarum 
Tertullianearum partic. i. iii., Halle, 1881, Gotha, 1887- Excerpta Ter- 
tullianea in Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiis (Progr.), Hamburg, 1892. J. van 
der Vliet , Studia ecclesiastica : Tertullianus. I. Critica et interpretatoria, 
Leiden, 1891. Aem. Kroymann , Quaestiones Tertullianeae criticae, Inns 
bruck, 1894; H. Gomperz, Tertullianea, Vienna, 1895; Kroymann., Kritische 
Vorarbeiten ftir den dritten und vierten Band der neuen Tertullian- Ausgabe, 
Vienna, 1900 (Sitzungsberichte, clxiii.). -- JFr. A. von Besnard, Tertullian. 
Samtliche Schriften iibersetzt und bearbeitet, 2 voll., Augsburg, 1837 1838. 
H. Kellner, Tertullians ausgewahlte Schriften iibersetzt, 2 voll., Kempten 
1870 1871 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). Id., Tertullians samtliche Schriften 
aus dem Lateinischen iibersetzt, 2 voll., Cologne, 1882. For an English 
translation of the writings of Tertullian see Holmes and Thidnall, in Ante- 
Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe), iii. 17 697, 707 717; iv. 3 121. 

On the style and diction of Tertullian the reader may consult G. R. 
Haus child , Die Grundsatze und Mittel der Wortbildung bei Tertullian 
(Progr.), I, Leipzig, 1876; II, Frankfurt, 1881. J. P. Condamin , De Q. 
S. Fl. Tertulliano vexatae religionis patrono et praecipuo, apud Latinos, 
christianae linguae artifice (These), Bar-le-duc, 1877. H. Hoppe, De ser- 
mone Tertullianeo quaestiones selectae (Dissert, inaug.) , Marburg, 1897. 
E. Nor den, Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1898, ii. 606 615. H. Hoppe, 
Syntax und Stil des Tertullian, Leipzig, 1903. See also for the illustration 
of the text C. Cavedoni , Luoghi notevoli di Tertulliano dichiarati coi ris- 
contri dei monument! antichi, in Archivio dell Ecclesiastico (1864), ii. 409 
to 431. H. Kellner, Organischer Zusammenhang und Chronologic der 
Schriften Tertullians, in Katholik (1879), n - 5 6z 5 8 9^ ^V- Chronologiae 
Tertullianeae supplementa (Progr.), Bonn, 1890. G. N. JBonwetsch , Die 
Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfassung untersucht, Bonn, 1878. 
A. Harnack, Zur Chronologic der Schriften Tejtullians , in Zeitschr. fur 
Kirchengesch. (1877 1878), ii. 572 583. E. Noldechen, Die Abfassungszeit 
der Schriften Tertullians, Leipzig, 1888 (see above). J. Schmidt, Ein Bei- 
trag zur Chronologic der Schriften Tertullians und der Prokonsuln von 
Afrika, in Rhein. Museum fiir Philol., new series (1891), xlvi. 77 98. 
y. P. Knaake, Die Predigten des Tertullian und Cyprian, in Theol. Studien 
und Kritiken (1903), Ixxvi. 606 639. -- - Works on the doctrine of Ter 
tullian : y. A. W. Neander, Antignostikus. Geist des Tertullianus und Ein- 
leitung in dessen Schriften, Berlin, 1825; 2. ed. 1849. * Leimbach, 
Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians, Gotha, 1874. G. Caucanas, 
Tertullien et le montanisme, Geneve, 1876. G. R. Hauschild, Die rationale 
Psychologic und Erkenntnistheorie Tertullians, Leipzig, 1880. G. Ludwig, 
Tertullians Ethik in durchatis objektiver Darstellung (Inaug. - Diss.), 
Leipzig, 1885. G. Esser, Die Seelenlehre Tertullians, Paderborn, 1893. 
K. H. Wirth, Der Verdienst-Begriff in der christl. Kirche. I: Der Ver- 
dienst-Begriff bei Tertullian, Leipzig, 1893. y. Stier, Die Gottes- und 
Logoslehre Tertullians, Gottingen, 1889. G. Schwelowsky , Der Apologet 
Tertullian in seinem Verhaltnis zu der griechisch-romischen Philosophic, 
Leipzig, i go i. C. Guignebert, Tertullien. Etude sur ses sentiments a 1 egard 
de 1 empire et de la socie te civile, Paris, 1901. -- J. F. Bethune- Baker, 
Tertullian s use of Substantia, Natura, and Persona, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (1902 1903), iv. 440 442. J. Leblanc, Le materialisme de Ter 
tullien, in Annales de philos. chretienne, Juillet, 1903, pp. 415 423. 
H. Ronsch , Das Neue Testament Tertullians aus dessen Schriften mog- 


lichst vollstandig rekonstruiert , Leipzig, 1871. J. Kolberg , Verfassung, 
Kultus imd Disziplin der christlichen Kirche nach den Schriften Tertullians, 
Braunsberg, 1886. A. Harnack, Tertullian in der Literatur der alten Kirche 
(Sitzungsberichte der kgl. pretiftischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1895, 
pp. 545 579). A. J. Mason, Tertullian and Purgatory, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (1902), iii. 598 601. J. Tixeront , Histoire des dogmes. I: La 
Theologie ante-Niceenne, Paris, 1904. A. d Ales , La Theologie de Ter- 
tullien, Paris, 1905. y. Turmel, Tertullien, in La Pense e chretienne, Textes 
et etudes, Paris, 1905, xlviii. 398. 

3. APOLOGETIC WRITINGS. Foremost among these is the Apo 
logeticum or Apologeticus (the most ancient text-witnesses do not agree), 
a defence of Christianity, composed in the summer or autumn of 197, 
and addressed to the provincial governors of the Roman Empire. It 
opens with a request, couched in words of great beauty and force, 
that the truth, being forbidden to defend itself publicly, may reach 
the ears of the rulers at least by the hidden paths of dumb letters. 
The Apology itself falls into two parts, in so far as it treats first of 
the secret and then of the public crimes of the Christians (pcculta 
facinora, c. 6; manifestiora, cc. 6 9). He makes short work of the 
first class of accusations: infanticide, Thyestsean banquets, incest 
(cc. 7 9); all the more lengthy and detailed is his treatment 
(cc. 10 27 28 45) of the public crimes: contempt of the religion 
of the fatherland (intentatio laesae divinitatis, c. 27), and the still 
more reprehensible crime of high treason (titulus laesae augustioris 
maiestatis, c. 28). He closes with an assertion of the absolute 
superiority of Christianity ; it is a revealed religion and is beyond the 
rivalry of all human philosophy (cc. 46 50). The special characteristic 
of the work lies in the boldness with which the politico-juridical 
accusations against the Christians are brought to the front. Its relations 
to the Octavius of Minucius Felix have already been indicated ( 24, 2). 
An ancient Greek version has perished ; we know of it only through 
citations in Eusebius 1 . A second Apology, Ad nationes libri ii, is 
partly illegible in the only manuscript known to us, the Codex Ago- 
bardinus. In the first book he demonstrates that the accusations launched 
against the Christians are really true of the heathens ; in the second 
book he draws on Varro s Rerum divinarum libri xvi in order 
to cover with ridicule the heathen belief in the gods. The tone of this 
work is more animated and acrimonious, than that of the Apologeticum. 
Its process of reasoning is also less orderly and the diction less chaste. 
It was also written in 197, a little while before the Apologeticum, the 
appearance of which it frequently announces (i. 3 7 10; al). The golden 
booklet De testimonio animae is an appendix to the Apologeticum, 
destined to illustrate the meaning of the phrase testimonium animae 
naturaliter christianae (Apol. c. 17). Even the heathen, by his in- 

1 Hist, eccl., ii. 2, 4 6; al. 

50- TERTULLIAN. 183 

voluntary exclamations and his ordinary modes of speech, gives ex 
pression to a natural religious knowledge of God, to belief in His 
existence and unity, the reality of malevolent spirits, and a life beyond 
the grave. All this corresponds admirably with the teachings of the 
Christians. In his treatment of these ideas Tertullian reveals the 
touch and temper of the poet. The brief letter Ad Scapulam, written 
probably some time after Aug. 14., 212, was intended as an ad 
monition to Scapula, proconsul of Africa, an especially fierce per 
secutor of the Christians. Tertullian reminds him of the divine 
judgments that had fallen upon the persecutors of former days. The 
Adversus ludaeos, called forth, as the opening words show, by a 
discussion between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte, was written 
to prove that the grace of God, voluntarily rejected by Israel, has 
been offered to the Gentiles. In place of the ancient law of retri 
bution there has come the new law of love. In Jesus of Nazareth 
the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled. The last chapters, 
9 14, which deal with the Messianic office of Jesus, are clearly an 
unskilful excerpt from the third book of Tertullian s Against Marcion. 
Some passages, nevertheless, not found in the latter work seem to 
indicate by their style and vocabulary the personality of Tertullian. 
It is probably true that Tertullian left the work incomplete; a later 
and unskilful hand has compiled the last chapters. Chapters I 8 
are surely the work of Tertullian ; both internal evidence and citations 
by St. Jerome make it certain *. 

The best of the separate editions of the Apologeticum is that of 
S. Haverkamp , Leyden, 1718. Later editions or reprints are those by 
y. Kayser, Paderborn, 1865; H. Hurter, Innsbruck, 1872 (Ss. Patr. opusc. 
sel., xix); F. Leonard, Namur, 1881 ; T. H. Bindley, London, 1889. Vizzini, 
Bibliotheca Ss. Patrum, Rome, 1902 1903, series iii, voll. i ii iii iv v, 
has edited the Apologeticum (according to Havercamp s text), De prae- 
scriptione haereticorum, De testimonio animae, De baptismo, De poeni- 
tentia, De oratione, De pudicitia, Adversus Marcionem, Adversus Valenti- 
nianos. P. de Lagarde published a new recension of the Apologeticum, in Ab- 
handlungen der k. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen, 1891, xxxvii. 73 ff. 
C. Callcvaert, Le codex Fuldensis, le meilleur manuscrit de rApologeticum 
de Tertullien, in Revue d hist. et de liter, religieuses (1902), vii. 322 353. 
For the ancient Greek version see Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen 
(1892), viii. 4, i 36. The relation between the Apologeticum and the Ad 
nationes is treated by v. Hartel , Patristische Studien, ii. The letter Ad 
Scaptdam, with the De praescriptione and the Ad martyres, were edited anew 
by T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894. For the Adversus ludaeos see P. Corssen, 
Die Altercatio Simonis ludaei etTheophili Christiani, Berlin, 1890, pp. 2 9; 
E. Noldechen, in Texte und Untersuchungen, (1894), xii. 2; j. M. Ein- 
siedler , De Tertulliani adv. ludaeos libro (Dissert. Inaug.), Vienna, 1897. 
Noldechen maintains the genuineness and unity of the work ; Einsiedler, on 
the contrary, holds that with a few exceptions the second part is owing 
to a later compiler. 

1 Comm. in Dan. ad ix. 24 IT. 


4. DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL WORKS. - - Apart from its local and 
immediate purpose, the defence of Catholic doctrine in general, or 
the refutation of heresy as such, was the theme of Tertullian in his 
imperishable work De praescriptione haereticorum, a title vouched for 
by the oldest and best manuscripts. Praescriptio is a form of de 
fence in civil procedure based on length of possession; its result is 
to exclude the accuser at the very opening of the process. It is 
admitted by all that the Lord confided to the Apostles the preaching 
of His doctrine; therefore only the churches founded by them, and 
not heretics, can be admitted to testify in regard to Christian truth. 
This is a consequence of the principalitas veritatis et posteritas 
mendacitatis (c. 31). Catholic doctrine is that which existed from 
the beginning, and is therefore the true one; every heresy is an 
innovation and as such necessarily false. The appeal of heretics to 
the Holy Scriptures is clearly unjustifiable, for they are the property 
of the Catholic Church, which received them from the Apostles. 
Previous to his discussion and demonstration of the thesis of pre 
scription by possession (cc. 1540), Tertullian treats at some length 
of the origin and nature of heresy (cc. I 14); in conclusion he calls 
attention to the lack of moral gravity and of religious earnestness visible 
among heretics; they manifest themselves thereby as followers of 
falsehood (cc. 41 44). This work stands as a classic defence of the 
Catholic principle of authority and tradition. It is a development of 
the theory of St. Irenaeus 1 , set forth with the skill of a jurist. 
Tertullian wrote it while still a Catholic, probably before any of his 
writings against individual heretics (cf. c. 44). 

Among the latter works the Adversus Marcionem libri v is easily 
pre-eminent; he revised it twice before it reached its present form 
(i. i). The first book in its third (and surviving) form was edited 
in 207, in the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus (i. 15); it is 
not possible to determine more closely at what- intervals the other 
four books followed. In the first two he refutes Marcion s doctrine of 
a good God and a Creator-God, the latter at once just and wicked. 
There cannot be a good God other than the Creator of the world 
(book i); the Creator is rather the one true God, to whom belong 
all the attributes with which the Marcionites clothe their good God 
(book ii). In the third book he proves that the historical Christ is 
the Messias foretold in the Old Testament. The two remaining books 
are a critique of the New Testament according to Marcion; in the 
fourth he discusses the evangelium, in the fifth the apostolicum 
( 2 5> 7)- Adversus Hermogenem was probably written after De prae 
scriptione; in it he attacks with philosophical and scriptural weapons 
the dualism of the Gnostics. It was called forth by the teaching of 

~ Adv. haer., iii. ; cf. 34, 3. 

50- TERTULLIAN. 185 

the painter Hermogenes (at Carthage?) that God had not created the 
world. He only fashioned it out of matter that had existed from all 
eternity. Hermogenes claimed also for his teaching the authority of 
Scripture. Tertullian is already a Montanist in the Adversus Valen- 
linianos (c. 5). Its composition is posterior (c. 16) to that of the work 
against Hermogenes ; in it he is content to describe the doctrine of his 
adversaries according to St. Irenaeus * and to cover them with ridicule. 
We do not know that he ever published the scientific criticism of the 
Valentinian Gnosis promised in this work (cc. 3 6). He composed the 
De baptismo while still a Catholic, in order to solve the doubts raised 
among the Christians of Carthage by the rationalistic objections that 
a certain Quintilla (the proper reading, c. i) was urging against the 
ecclesiastical teaching concerning baptism. He declared all heretical 
baptism invalid (c. 15). The Scorpiace, or antidote against the bites 
of the scorpion, is a booklet against the Gnostics whom he compares 
to scorpions. Its purpose is to show the moral worth and meritorious 
nature of martyrdom ; it was very probably published after the second 
book against Marcion (c. 5). The De came Christi is a polemical 
work against the Gnostic Docetism of Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, 
and Alexander ; he proves that the body of Christ was a real human 
body, taken from the virginal body of Mary, but not by the way of 
human procreation. It is here that we meet (c. 9) his eccentric 
notion, otherwise in keeping with his extreme realism, that the appear 
ance of Christ was unseemly. He cites in this work among other 
Christian sources his own fourth book against Marcion (c. 7). The 
large work De resurrectione carfiis, also against the Gnostics, seems 
(c. 2) to have been published immediately after the De carne Christi. 
It reviews (cc. 3 17) the arguments furnished by reason in favor of 
the resurrection of the body, illustrates at length the pertinent texts 
of the Old and New Testaments (cc. 18 55), and discusses the 
nature and qualities of the risen body (cc. 56 63). In the closing 
chapters he lays especial stress on the substantial identity of the 
risen with the actual body. Adversus Praxeam, probably the last 
of his anti-heretical writings, certainly written long after his definitive 
exit from the Church, defends the ecclesiastical teaching concerning 
the Trinity against Patripassian monarchianism. In his defence of 
the personal distinction between the Father and the Son he does 
not, apparently, avoid a certain subordinationism. Nevertheless in 
many very clear expressions and turns of thought he almost forestalls 
the Nicene creed. 

New editions, or reprints of old editions, of the De praescriptione have 
been made kyH.Hurter, Innsbruck, 1870 1880 (SS. Patr. opusc. sel. ix); 
E. PreuscJmi, Freiburg, 1892 (Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmen- 
geschichtl. Quellenschriften , iii); T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894. Vizzini s 

1 Adv. haer., i. 


edition is mentioned on p. 183. L. Lehanneur } Le traite de Tertullien 
centre les Valentiniens, Caen, 1886. De baptismo is also in Hurter, 1. c., 
Innsbruck, 1869, vii. R. A. Lipsius , Uber Tertullians Schrift wider 
Praxeas, in Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1868), xiii. 701 724. Th. Scher- 
mann , Lateinische Parallelen zu Didimus (in De baptismo), in Rom. 
Quartalschr. fiir christl. Altertumskunde und fiir Kirchengesch. (1902), xvi. 
232 242. E. Heintzel, Hermogenes, der Hauptvertreter des philosophi- 
schen Dualismus in der alten Kirche, Berlin, 1902. E. von der Goltz, Die 
Traktate des Tertullian und Cyprian iiber das Gebet, in Das Gebet in 
der altesten Christenheit, Leipzig, 1901, pp. 279 287. 

5. PRACTICO-ASCETICAL WRITINGS. - The spirited treatise De 
patientia especially interests all readers of Tertullian , because in a 
sense addressed to its own impatient author. He was to find a 
certain consolation in speaking of the beauty and sublimity of patience, 
even as the sick delight in speaking of the value of health (c. i). 
The book surely belongs to the Catholic period of his life, as does 
also De oratione destined for the Catechumens. In the latter he 
undertakes to explain the Lord s Prayer (cc. 2 9), gives various in 
structions on the value of prayer in general (cc. 10 28) and ends 
with a moving description of its power and efficacy (c. 29). In De 
paenitentia he treats of penance at length, of the penitential temper, 
the practice of penance, and of two kinds of penance peculiar to the 
early Church : that which an adult was expected to perform before 
baptism (cc. 4 6) and the so-called canonical penance that the 
baptised Christian had to undergo after the commission of such grave 
sins as homicide, idolatry and sins of the flesh, before being reconciled 
with the Church (cc. 712). In his Montanist work De pudicitia he 
directly contradicts the teaching of this Catholic work on penance. 
His change of attitude was occasioned by the decree of Pope Callixtus 
(217 222) that henceforth sins of adultery and fornication would be 
remitted those who had fulfilled the canonical penance (c. i). In 
this work Tertullian laments with bitterness the decadence of virtue 
and righteousness, attacks violently the psychici, a name given to 
the Catholics in opposition to the pneumatici or Montanists, and 
undertakes to show that the Church cannot remit such grave sins as 
adultery and fornication (c. 4). The beautiful letter Ad martyres, 
written certainly (c. 6) in 197, contains words of consolation and 
exhortation to a number of Christians who had been suffering a long 
imprisonment for their faith, and were in daily expectation of the 
final summons. Among his writings are several on Christian marriage, 
especially on second marriages. The earliest and most attractive is 
his work Ad uxorem in two books. In it he advises his wife Esther 
not to remarry after his death, or else to marry no one but a Christian. 
As a Montanist, however, he rejects second marriage unconditionally. 
In the tractate De exhortatione castitatis addressed to a widowed 
friend, he declares that a second marriage is simply fornication (non 


aliud dicendum erit secundum matrimonium quam species stupri, c. 9). 
In De monogamia, written somewhat later, about 217, he maintains 
the same opinion with even less reserve (unum matrimonium novimus 
sicut unum Deum, c. i). The De spectaculis is devoted to an ex 
haustive study of a question that had then become very serious: 
Can Christians frequent the public games and theatres (spectacula) of 
the heathens? His answer is that all such plays are intimately cor 
related with the idolatrous worship of the times (cc. 4 13) and 
necessarily constitute an immediate peril for Christian morality by 
reason of the savage passions they arouse (cc. 14 30). He pours 
out against heathenism all the hatred of his soul in a flaming de 
scription of the greatest spectacle the world shall ever behold, the 
Second Coming of the Lord or the Last Judgment (c. 30). In De 
idololatria, posterior (c. 13) to De spectaculis, and written very pro 
bably while he was still a Catholic, he illustrates in every sense the 
duty of Christians to avoid idolatry; the fine arts and public life are 
entirely permeated with it and cannot therefore offer any opening 
for Christian activity. Quite similar are the contents of De corona, 
written probably during August or September of 211, apropos of 
the act of a Christian soldier who had refused to put on a crown of 
flowers, in keeping with a heathen custom. As the wearing of such 
a crown was among the specific rites of idolatry (c. 7) it followed 
that a Christian soldier could not, on principle, accept military service 
(c. n). In the two books De cultu feminarum, written while he was 
still a Catholic, he thunders against female vanity in the matter of 
dress and ornament. It is only in the Codex Agobardinus that the 
first book bears the title De cultu feminarum ; in all other manuscripts 
it is known as De habitu muliebri; moreover, it has reached us in 
a very imperfect state. The second book pursues the same theme, 
and is composed in a calmer and milder spirit. In the De oratione 
(cc. 21 22) he had maintained that Christian virgins should always 
be veiled in the Church. Some dissented from his views, and he 
returned to the subject in a special treatise, De virginibus velandis, 
in which he appealed to the Paraclete, the Holy Scriptures and the 
discipline of the Church, and went beyond his former demand by 
insisting that these virgins, once they had reached the age of ma 
turity, should be always and everywhere veiled. De fuga in per- 
secutione is a Montanist work , written towards the close of 212; 
it forbids as absolutely illicit flight of any kind during the stress 
of persecution. De ieiunio adversus psychicos is one of the most 
offensive of his Montanist writings; in it he denounces (c. i) the 
Catholics as gluttons because they observe a certain moderation in 

De patientia is printed in Hurter, SS. Patr. opusc. selecta, iv; also 
ib.) De oratione, ii; De paenitentia, v. De paenitentia and De pudicitia 


were edited apart by E. Preuschen, Freiburg, 1891 (Sammlung ausgewahlter 
Quellenschriften, ii), and by P. de Labriolle, with a French translation (Coll. 
Hemmer et Lejay), Paris, 1906, Ixvii. 237. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullians Schrif- 
ten De paenitentia tmd De pudicitia mit Riicksicht auf die Buftdisziplin 
untersucht (Inaug.-Diss.), Tiibingen, 1890; also E. Rolffs, Das Indulgenz- 
edikt des romischen Bischofs Kallist, Leipzig, 1893 (Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, xi. 3). G. Esser, De pudic. c. 21 und der Primat des rom. 
Bischofs, in Katholik (1903), 3, 193 220. -- Ad martyres is found in 
Hurtcr, 1. c., iv; there is also an edition by T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894. 
- On the De monogamia see Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuchungen 
(1895), xii. 4, 50 109: Tertullians Gegner in De monogamia ; cf. 35, 5. 
E. Klussmann has published an excellent separate edition of De specta- 
culis, Leipzig, 1876. See his Adnot. crit. ad Tert. libr. de spectac., Rudol- 
stadt, 1876. For the purpose and the sources of the De spectaculis cf. 
E. Noldcchen, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 91 125; 
Neue Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1894), iii. 206 226; Zeitschr. fur Kirchen- 
gesch. (1894 1895), xv - *6i 20 3^ Philologus 3 Suppl. (1894), vi. 2, 727 
to 766. K. Werber, Tertullians Schrift De spectac. in ihrem Verhaltnis 
zu Varros Rerum divinarum libri (Progr.), Teschen, 1896. On the De 
ieiunio see Rolffs, 1. c. (1895), xii. 4, 5- 49: Tertullians Gegner in De 

6. THE DE ANIMA AND DE PALLIO. - Two works of Ter- 
tullian do not fall into any of the above-mentioned groups ; they merit 
therefore a distinct mention. De amma belongs to his Montanist 
period (cc. 9 45 58) and was written after the second book against 
Marcion (c. 21). It is the first Christian psychology, though less a 
manual of philosophy than of theology, its purpose being (c. I 3) 
to describe the doctrine of the soul according to Christian revelation 
and to refute the philosophic or rather Gnostic heresy that hid itself 
beneath the cloak of philosophy. The first section (cc. 4 22) deals 
with the nature and the faculties of the soul. While he does not 
deny the immaterial character of the latter, he believes himself bound 
to maintain a certain degree of corporeity; for a condition of pure 
spirituality was unintelligible to him 1 . In the second section (cc. 23 
to 41) he investigates the problem of the specific origin of each soul, 
rejects the theories of pre-existence and of metempsychosis, and 
opposes to creatianism the crassest generatianism or traducianism. 
In the act of generation man reproduces his whole nature, body and 
soul. The third section (cc. 42 58) treats of death, sleep, the world 
of dreams, the state and place of the soul after death. The curious 
little work De pallia, written between 209 and 21 1 (cf. c. 2), owes its 
origin to a personal circumstance. For some unknown reason Ter- 
tullian had put off the toga and taken to wearing the pallium, an act 
that drew down on him the satire of his fellow-citizens. In this booklet 
he justifies his conduct with playful art and biting sarcasm. 

Concerning the source of De anima, a work on the same subject 
an. c. 6) by Soramis , a physician of Ephesus, see H. Diels , Doxo- 

1 De came Christi, c. 1 1 ; Adv. Praxeam, c. 7. 

50- TERTULLIAN. 189 

graph! Graeci, Berlin, 1890, pp. 203 ff. We owe to Cl. Salmasius an ex 
cellent separate edition of the De pallio, Paris, 1622, Leyden, 1656. This 
latter treatise is illustrated by H. Kellner, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1870), 
Hi. 547 566, and by G, Boissier, La fin du paganisme, Paris, 1891 (3. ed., 
Paris, 1898), i. 259304. 

7. LOST WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN. Three of his extant Latin 
works, he tells us, were written also in Greek: De spectaculis 1 , De 
baptismo or on the invalidity of heretical baptism (c. 15), De virginibus 
velandis (c. i). The Greek text of these writings has perished; and 
similarly the Latin text of a still larger number of writings. We 
know from his own statement that he published works entitled De 
spe fide Hum, De paradiso, Adversus Apelleiacos (?), De censu animae 
adversus Hermogenwn, De fato. De spe fide Hum 2 promoted Chiliastic 
views 3 . In De paradiso 4 he discussed many questions concerning Para 
dise 6 ; among other things he maintained the thesis that all departed 
souls, except those of the martyrs, must wait in the under-world 
until the day of the Lord 6 . Adversus Apelleiacos was directed 
against the followers of Apelles ( 25, 7) who held that not God, 
but a superior angel had created this world and was afterwards seized 
with regret for -his act 7 . In De censu animae , on the origin of 
the soul, he refuted the doctrine of Hermogenes that the soul was 
material in its origin, and there was in man no such thing as free 
will 9 . De fato was written against the teachings of the philosophers 
concerning fate and chance 10 . Through St. Jerome we know of three 
(or rather, perhaps, five) other works of Tertullian. One of them was 
entitled De ecstasi, or rather xspi ixaraGzcoQ^, perhaps a Greek work 
in defence of Montanism or the ecstatic speech of the Montanist 
prophets. It was originally in six books, but when he had read the 
anti-Montanistic work of Apollonius ( 35, 3) he added a seventh 
book against the latter. A work on marriage, Ad amicum p kilo- 
sop hum de angustiis nuptiarum, is mentioned twice by St. Jerome 12 . 
Another lost work was entitled De Aaron vestibus, on the liturgical 
garments of the High Priest in the Old Testament 13 . It is supposed 
that he wrote two other works: De circumcisione and De mundis 
atque immundis animalibus u . The index of the Codex Agobardinus 
shows that it once contained three works of Tertullian entitled : De 
carne et anima, De animae submissione, De superstitione saeculi; 
nothing is known of them beyond these titles. 

I Tert., De corona, c. 6. 2 Adv. Marcion., iii. 24. 

* Hicr., De viris ill., c. 18; Comm. in Ezech. ad xxxvi. I ss. 

4 Tert., De anima, c. 55. 5 Id., Adv. Marc , v. 12. 

6 Id., De anima, c. 55. 7 Id., De carne Christi, c. 8. 

8 Id., De anima, c I. Ib., cc. I 3 n 21 22 24. 

10 Ib., c. 20 ; see the citation in Planciades Fulgentius: Tertull. opp. (ed. Ohler}, ii. 745. 

II Hier., De viris ill., c. 53; cf. c. 40 and also c. 24. 12 Hier., Ep. 22, 22. 
13 Hier., Ep. 64, 23. " Id., Ep. 36, i. 


8. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. In the manuscripts and editions there 
is commonly added to De praescriptione, as an appendix, a Libellus 
adversus omnes haerescs, containing a list of heretics from Dositheus 
to Praxeas. The work is surely not from Tertullian s pen, but rather 
from that of Victorinus of Pettau ( 58, i). The principal source 
used by its author was the so-called Syntagma of Hippolytus 
( 54, 3). The works De Trinitate and De cibis Judaicis , pu 
blished in the editions of Tertullian, were written by Novatian 
( 55> 2 3)- A fragment De execrandis gentium diis, proving from 
the example of Jupiter that the heathens entertain unworthy notions 
of the divinity, is of unknown origin ; the diversity of style shows that 
it cannot belong to Tertullian. Neither is he the author of the poem 
Adversus Marcionem or Adversus Marcionitas in 1302 hexameters 
and five books. It is not only devoid of poetical merit, but frequently 
violates the rules of grammar and prosody. Hiickstadt and Oxe 
agree in attributing it to the latter half of the fourth century, the 
former to a writer in Rome, the latter to one in Africa, while Waitz 
maintains that it was composed by Commodianus ( 57). 

For the Libellus adversus omnes haereses (OeJiler, 1. c., ii. 751 765) 
see the literature on the Syntagma of Hippolytus ( 54, 3). E. Hiickstadt, 
liber das pseudo - tertullianische Gedicht Adv. Marcionem (Inaug.-Diss.), 
Leipzig, 1875. A. Oxt, Prolegomena de carmine Adv. Marcionitas (Dissert, 
inaug.), Leipzig, 1888; also Oxt, Victorini versus de lege Domini, em un- 
edierter Cento aus dem Carmen Adv. Marcionitas (Progr.), Krefeld, 1894. 
H. Waitz, Das pseudo -tertullianische Gedicht Adv. Marcionem, Darm 
stadt, 1901. For the poems DC gcnesi cf. Oehler, 1. c., ii. 774776 
( 88, 2), De Sodoma and De lona ib., ii. 769 773 ( 88, 2). See 116, 5 
for the poem De iudicio Domini (Oehler, 1. c. , ii. 776781), also found 
amidst the works of Cyprian (ed. Hartel, iii. 308-325) where it is entitled 
Ad Flavin m Fclicem de resurrectione mortuorum. 

51. St. Cyprian. 

I. His LIFE. - One of the most attractive figures in early eccle 
siastical literature is the noble bishop of Carthage, Thascius Csecilius 
Cyprianus. The Vita Caccilii Cypriani, which describes his con 
version to the Christian faith, was written soon after his death by 
one closely related to him and thoroughly informed 1 according to 
St Jerome by his deacon and companion Pontius. From his own 
writings, however, especially from his correspondence, we acquire a 
better knowledge of his life both private and public. He was born 
about the year 200 in Africa, of wealthy heathen parents, embraced 
the career of a rhetorician and as such won brilliant renown at 
Carthage 2 About 246 he was converted to Christianity by C&- 
cilianus (Vita c. 4) or Caecilius 3 , a priest of Carthage, soon after 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 68. * Lact., Div. Inst., v. i, 24. 

Hier., De viris ill., c. 67. 


which he was admitted among the clergy. At the end of 248 or 
early in 249, he was made bishop of Carthage and metropolitan of 
proconsular Africa. He discharged the duties of this office during 
ten stormy years with indefatigable zeal and great success. In the 
sanguinary persecution of Decius (250 251), during which he fled 
from Carthage and kept himself in concealment, many renounced 
the Christian faith and were known as sacrificati or thurificati, 
libellatici, acta facientes. The question regarding the treatment of 
these lapsi or rather the conditions of their reconciliation with the 
Church led to a schism at Carthage as well as at Rome. The 
deacon Felicissimus became the leader of a party which reproached 
Cyprian with his great severity, while at Rome a part of the com 
munity ranged itself under the banner of Novatian and withdrew 
from communion with Pope Cornelius because of his excessive mildness 
in the treatment of similar fallen brethren. The controversy on 
the validity of heretical baptism was the occasion of other grave 
disorders. Cyprian held with Tertullian (50, 47) that baptism 
administered by heretics was invalid; he therefore baptized anew 
all who returned from an heretical body to the communion of the 
Church. In this he was sustained by several councils that met 
at Carthage under his presidency in 255, in the spring of 256, and 
Sept. I., 256. But Pope Stephen I. rejected their views and de 
clared: Si qui ergo a quacumqiie Jiaeresi venient ad vos , nihil 
innovctur nisi quod tradition est, nt manus illis imponatur in paeni- 
tentiam 1 . The ensuing persecution of Valerian and the death of the 
Pope prevented a formal conflict between Stephen and Cyprian. The 
latter was beheaded, September 14., 258, in the gardens of the pro 
consular Villa Sexti, not far from Carthage; the Acta proconsul aria, 
or official record of his execution, are still extant. 

The Vita Caecilii Cypriani and Acta proconstdaria are usually published 
with the works of Cyprian (ed. Hartel, iii [1871]. xc cxiv). - - C. Suys- 
kenus , De S. Cypriano, in Acta SS. Sept., A r enice, 1761, iv. 191 348. 
Fr. IV. Rettberg, Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, Gottingen, 1831. Fr. Boh- 
ringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 2. ed., iii iv. Die lateinisch- 
afrikanische Kirche : Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Stuttgart, 1864, reprinted 1873. 
C. E. Freppel , St. Cyprien , Paris, 1865; 3. ed. 1890. J. Peters, Der 
hi. Cyprian von Karthago, Ratisbon, 1877. -B- Fechtrup, Der hi. Cyprian, 
I, Minister, 1878. E. Wh. Benson, Cyprian, London, 1897. P. Monceaux, 
Histoire litteraire de 1 Afrique chretienne. II: St. Cyprien et son temps, 
Paris, 1902. Cf. H. Grisar, Cyprians Oppositions-Konzil gegen Papst 
Stephan, in Zeitschr. ftir kathol. Theol. (1881), V. 193 221 (He holds 
that the decision of Stephen was issued not before, but after the council of 
September i. 256). - - y. Ernst, War der hi. Cyprian exkommuniziert ? 
Ib., 1894, xviii. 473499 (he was not). Id., Der angebliche Widerruf des 
hi. Cyprian in der Ketzertauffrage, ib., 1895, xix - 2 34~ 2 7 2 - F- Kemper, 
De vitarum Cypriani, Martini Turonensis, Ambrosii , Augustini rationibus 
(Dissert.), Mlinster, 1904. 

1 Cypr., Ep. 74, I (ed. Hartel}. 



2. HIS WRITINGS. -- The writings of Cyprian, collected at a very 
early date, were read with diligence and zealously multiplied. Pontius 
himself possessed a collection of the treatises of Cyprian and has 
left us a rhetorical paraphrase of their titles or themes (Vita c. 7). 
It is both interesting and suggestive to note that in an ancient and 
anonymous Catalogue of the Libri Canonici of the Old and New 
Testaments (derived from a copy of the same made in 359) the 
writings of Cyprian, both treatises and letters, are also indicated, 
with the number of lines contained in each (cum indiculis versuum). 
St. Jerome felt that he was not bound to furnish a catalogue of the 
writings of Cyprian: Huius ingenii superfluum est indie em texere, 
cum sole clariora sint eiits opera 1 . These works are still extant 
in almost countless manuscripts, some of which reach back to the 
sixth century. So far as we know, only a few of his letters have 
been lost. 

His writings fall spontaneously into two groups: treatises (sermones, 
libelli, tractatus) and letters. The voice that resounds in both groups 
is that of a bishop and a shepherd of souls. He is a man of prac 
tice and not of theory, a man of faith and not of speculation. When 
he takes up the pen, it is in behalf of practical aims and interests; 
thus, where oral discourse is insufficient, he hastens to succour the 
good cause with his writings. He does not go far afield in theoretical 
discussion, but appeals to the Christian and ecclesiastical sentiments 
of his hearers, and bases his argument on the authority of the Sacred 
Scriptures. He exhibits on all occasions a spirit of moderation and 
mildness and a remarkable power of organization. He never loses 
himself in pursuit of intangible ideals but follows consistently the 
aims that he has grasped with clearness and decision. St. Augustine 
outlined his character correctly when he called him a Catholic bishop 
and a Catholic martyr (catholicum episcopum, catholicum martyr em)*. 
The central idea of his life is the unity of the Catholic Church; it 
has been rightly said that this concept is like the root whence issue 
all his doctrinal writings. Indeed, he is nowhere so independent and 
original as in his work De catholicae ecclesiae unit ate. In his other 
works he very frequently borrows from Tertullian 3 ; we learn from 
the same source that he read the works of that writer every day. It 
was his wont when calling on his secretary for a book of Tertullian 
to exclaim: Da magistrum^. At the same time, whatever the degree 
of his literary dependency, his own personality is apparent in every 
one of his writings. The thoughts of Cyprian may be close akin to 
the thoughts of Tertullian, but the form in which the bishop of 
Carthage clothes these thoughts differs widely from the style of 
Tertullian. The diction of Cyprian is free and pleasing, and flows 

1 De viris ill., c. 67. 2 Aug., De bapt., iii. 3, 5. 

3 Hur., Ep. 84, 2. - 1 Hie?:, De viris ill., c. 53. 

51- ST. CYPRIAN. 193 

in a tranquil and clear, almost transparent stream 1 . His language is 
at all times enlivened and exalted by the warmth of his feelings. 
Quite frequently the page is colored by images and allegories chosen 
with taste and finished with skilful attention to the smallest detail; 
not a few of them became more or less the common places of later 
ecclesiastical literature. 

The Catalogue of the Libri Canonid and the works of Cyprian, be 
longing to the year 359, was first edited by Th. Mommsen , in Hermes 
(1886), xxi. 142 156; cf. (1890), xxv. 636 638. On the same theme see 
W. Sanday and C. H. Turner, in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica , Oxford 
1891, iii. 217 325. K. G. Gotz, Geschichte der cyprianischen Literatur bis 
zu der Zeit der ersten erhaltenen Handschriften (Inaug. -Diss.), Basle, 
1891. -- On the manuscripts of Cyprian cf. Hartel, in his own edition 
(1871), iii. i LXX; also Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur, i. 697 
to 701. C. H. Turner, The original order and contents of our oldest 
Ms. of St. Cyprian, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 282 285; A 
newly discovered leaf of a fifth-century manuscript of St. Cyprian, ib., iii. 
576 578; Our oldest manuscripts of St. Cyprian: The Turin and Milan 
Fragment, ib. , iii. 579 584. Dom Ramsay, Our oldest manuscripts of 
St. Cyprian, ib., iii. 585 594. 

The complete works of Cyprian were first published by J. Andreas, 
Rome, 1471. Then followed the editions of D. Erasmus, Basle, 1520; J. Pa- 
meliuSj Antwerp. 1568 ; M. Rigaltius, Paris, 1648 ; J. Fell and J. Pearson, Ox 
ford, 1682; Stephen Baluzius and Pr. Maranus, Paris, 1726. The edition of 
Migne (PL. iii v) reproduces, very incorrectly, the text of Baluzius and 
Maranus. The most recent and the best edition of the works of St. Cyprian 
is that of W, von Hartel , Vienna, 1868 1871, in three parts (Corpus 
scriptorum eccl. Lat. , iii, pars i iii). For a criticism of the Hartel 
edition cf. P. de Lagarde, in Gottinger Gelehrten Anzeigen (1871), pp. 521 
to 543 (reprinted in P. de Lagarde , Symmikta, Gottingen, 1877, pp. 65 
to 78). -- G. Mercati, D alcuni nuovi sussidii per la critica del testo di 
S. Cypriano, Rome, 1899. A German version of most of the treatises was 
published by U. Ukl, Kempten, 1869, and all the letters by J. Niglutsch 
and A. Egger, ib. , 1879 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). - - Le Provost, Etude 
philologique et litteraire sur St. Cyprien, Pans, 1889. E. W. Watson, The 
style and language of St. Cyprian, in Studia bibl. et eccles., Oxford, 1896, 
iv. 189 324. L. Bayard, Le latin de St. Cyprien, Paris, 1902. E. de 
Jonghe , Les clausules de Saint Cyprien, in Muse e Beige (1902), vi. 344 
to 363. 

For the doctrine of St. Cyprian cf. J. Peters , Die Lehre des hi. Cy 
prian von der Einheit der Kirche, Luxemburg, 1870. J. H. Reinkens, 
Die Lehre des hi. Cyprian von der Einheit der Kirche, Wiirzburg, 1873. 
De Leo , In librum S. Cypr. De imitate ecclesiae disquisitio critico-theo- 
logica, Naples, 1877. O. Ritschl , Cyprian von Karthago und die Ver- 
fassung der Kirche, Gottingen, 1885. J. de la Rochclle, L idee de 1 eglise 
dans St. Cyprjen, in Revue d histoire et de litterature religieuses (1896), 
i. 519 533. P. v, Hoensbroech, Der romische Primat bezeugt durch den 
hi. Cyprian, in Zeitschr. fiir kathol. Theol. (1890), xiv. 193 230; Id., Zur 
Auffassung Cyprians von der Ketzertaufe, ib. (1891), xv. 727 736. J. Ernst, 
Zur Auffassung Cyprians von der Ketzertaufe, ib. (1893), xvii. 79 103. 
K. G. Gotz, Die Bufilehre Cyprians, Konigsberg, 1894. K. Miiller, Die Buli- 

1 Lact., Div. Inst., v. i, 25; liter., Ep. 58, 10. 



institution in Karthago unter Cyprian, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1895 
to 1896), xvi. i 44, 187 219. K. G. Gotz, Das Christentum Cyprians, Gieften, 
1896. K. H. Wirth y Der Verdienst-Begriff in der christl. Kirche nach 
seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung dargestellt; II: Der Verdienst-Begriff 
bei Cyprian, Leipzig, 1901. A. Melardi, S. Cypriano di Cartagine: con 
tribute all apologetica latina del 3. secolo, Potenza, 1901. --- P. Corssen, 
Der cyprianische Text der Acta apostol. (Progr.), Berlin, 1892. J. Heiden- 
reich, Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit dem Vulgata- 
text, Bamberg, 1900. A. Harnack, Cyprian als Enthusiast, in Zeitschr. fur 
die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 177 191. P. St. John, A dis 
puted point in St. Cyprian s attitude towards the Primacy, in American 
Ecclesiastical Review (1903), xxix. 162 182. J. P. Knaabe , Die Pre- 
digten des Tertullian und Cyprian, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1903), 
Ixxvi. 606 639. 

3. TREATISES. - Pontius mentions 1 eleven or twelve treatises 
of Cyprian in the following, perhaps also the chronological, order: 
a) Ad Donatum, an outpouring of his heart addressed to an other 
wise unknown friend, for whom he depicts the new life entered on 
by baptismal regeneration; it was probably composed shortly after 
his conversion. The poetical form and the style of the treatise betray 
the former rhetorician 2 , b) De habitu virginum (in the Catalogue 
of 359: Ad virgines], a pastoral letter to women, especially to those 
virgins who had dedicated themselves to the service of the Lord. 
Cyprian calls them the blossoms on the tree of the Church (c. 3). 
He puts them on their guard particularly against vanity in dress. 
This treatise resembles very much the De cultu feminarum of Tertullian. 
c) De lapsis, composed in the spring of 251, immediately after the 
persecution of Decius and his own return to Carthage. In it he 
laments most touchingly the apostasy of so many brethren ; their recon 
ciliation must depend on a good confession and the performance of 
a corresponding penance, d) To the same year belongs the immortal 
work De catholicae ecclesiae imitate, a forcible exposition and defence 
of the Church, to which alone were made the promises of salvation, 
and not to the schisms at Rome and Carthage. Christ founded His 
Church on one, on Peter ; the unity of the foundation guarantees that of 
the edifice. Schism and heresy are the weapons of Satan. That person 
cannot God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother 
(habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem, 
c. 6). e) The treatise of Cyprian De dominica oratione, written about 
the beginning of 252, is similar in its contents to Tertullian s De 
oratione, and is important chiefly for its lengthy exposition of the Lord s 
Prayer (cc. 727), a feature that made it much beloved in Christian 
antiquity 3 , f) Ad Demetrianum, probably composed early in 252, and 
markedly apologetic in tendency. The sufferings of these unhappy 
times, war, pestilence and famine, which the heathen to whom he 

Vita c - 7- 2 Aug., De doctr. christ., iv. 14, 31. 

////., Comm. in Matth., v. i. 

51- ST. CYPRIAN. 195 

writes attributed to the Christian contempt of the gods, are really 
divine punishments, inflicted on account of the obstinacy and wickedness 
of the heathens, and in particular of their persecution of the Christians. 
g) The De mortalitate owes its origin to a pestilence that raged at 
Carthage and in the neighborhood, especially from 252 254. It is 
such a discourse of consolation as a bishop might deliver, and breathes 
in every line a magnanimity of soul and a power of faith that are 
most touching. The fact that the pestilence carried off both the 
faithful and the unbelievers ought not to surprise the former, since 
by word and example the Scripture makes known to all Christians 
that it is their especial destiny to suffer trial and tribulation. Temptation 
is only the prelude of victory, trial an occasion of merit, and death 
the transit to a better life, h) The De op ere et eleemosynis, an ex 
hortation to efficacious charity towards our neighbor, owes its origin, 
probably, to similar circumstances. Almsgiving is, in a certain sense, 
a means of obtaining grace; it appeases the divine wrath and atones 
for our postbaptismal faults and entitles us to a higher degree of 
celestial happiness, i) De bono patientiae was written during the 
conflict concerning heretical baptism *, very probably in the summer of 
256 in the hope of calming the irritation and anger of his opponents, 
and as a pledge of the author s own anxiety for the restoration of 
peace. It draws largely on the De patientia of Tertullian. k) De 
zelo et livore was probably meant to complete the preceding treatise; 
it is at once the work of a reconciling arbiter and a deciding 
judge. Envy and jealousy are poisonous growths that often strike 
deep roots in the soil of the Church, and bring forth the most de 
plorable fruits: hatred, schism, dissatisfaction, insubordination. 1) Ad 
Fortunatum is a collection of passages from Holy Writ put together 
at the request of the recipient, and likely to confirm the faithful soul 
in the tempest of persecution, which we assume to be that of Valerian, 
that had been raging since the middle of 257. Thirteen theses 
relative to this grievous trial are set forth ; each of them is con 
firmed by quotations from the Bible, m) Pontius appears to have 
been acquainted with another treatise that encouraged confessors to 
be brave unto the end; but it has not been possible to identify it 
with any certainty. 

J. G. Krabinger published excellent editions of the DC catholicae ec- 
clesiae imitate, De lapsis, De habitu virginum, Tubingen, 1853, also of the 
other treatises, Ad Donatum , De dominica pratione , De mortalitate , Ad 
Demetrianum, DC opere et eleemosynis, De bono patientiae, De zelo et livore, 
Tubingen, 1859. // Hwter, Ss. Patr. opusc. select., contains in vol. I: 
Ad Demetr. and De cath. ecd. unit. ; in vol. II : De dom. orat. \ in vol. IV : 
De mortal., De op. et eleem. and De bono pat.; in vol. V: DC lapsis. On 
the De opere et eleemosynis cf. E. W. Watson, in Journal of Theol. Studies 
(1901), ii. 433 438. K. G. Gotz has tried to show, but without success, in 

1 Cypr., Ep. 73, 26. 



Texte und Untersuchungen, xix, new series (1899) iv. ic. , that the brief 
letter Donatus Cypriano (ed. Hartel, iii. 272), hitherto held to be spurious, 
is really the beginning of the treatise Ad Donatum. Dom Ramsay, An 
Uncial Fragment of the Ad Donatum of St. Cyprian, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (1902), iv. 8689. Concerning De hab. virg. cf. J. Haussleiter, 
in Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 377 389. B. Aube, 
L Eglise et 1 Etat dans la seconde moitie du m e siecle. Paris, 1885, PP- 35 n ~> 
calls in doubt, without any good reason, the genuineness ot Ad Demetrianum. 
In the Revue Benedictine (1902), xix. 246 254, J. Chapman began a 
study on the well-known interpolations in De catholicae ecdesiae unitate in 
favor of the Roman Church, hitherto never submitted to a close exami 
nation ; Id. , The interpolations in St. Cyprian s De unitate ecclesiae , in 
Journal of Theol. Studies (1904), v. 634636; cf. E. W. Watson, The 
interpolations in St. Cyprian s De unitate ecclesiae, ib. , v. 432 436. - 
P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Un nuovo libello originale di libellatici della per- 
secuzione deciana, in Miscellanea di storia e cultura eccles. (1904). L. Cha- 
balier, Les lapsi dans 1 Eglise d Afrique au temps de Saint Cyprien (These), 
Lyon, 1904. 

4. TREATISES (CONTINUED). - - The work Ad Quirinum in three 
books, known formerly as Testimoniorum libri adversus Judaeos, 
contains a demonstration of the rejection of the Jews and the vocation 
of the Christians (book i), a sketch of Christology (book ii), and an 
introduction to a Christian and virtuous life (book iii, probably a later 
addition). At the beginning of each book are several theses, each of 
which, after the manner of the treatise Ad Fortunatum, is in its turn 
proved by a series of citations from Holy Writ. The first express mention 
of the work is found in the afore-mentioned Catalogue of the year 359. 
Before that date several ancient writers (Pseudo-Cyprian Adversus 
aleatores, Com median, Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus) had already 
made good use of its Scriptural treasures. The work is certainly 
authentic. The tractate Quod idola dii non sint is largely a com 
pilation from the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum 
of Tertullian. It is first mentioned by St. Jerome 1 . The authorship 
of Cyprian is uncertain. Haussleiter maintains, but without success, 
the authorship of Novatian. 

B. Dombart, Uber die Bedeutung Commodians fur die Textkritik der 
Testimonia Cyprians, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1879), xxii. 374 
to 389. For the genuineness of the third book Ad Quirinum cf. J. Hauss 
leiter, in Comment. Woelfflin. (1891), pp. 377 ff. Dom Ramsav, On early 
insertions in the third book of St. Cyprian s Testimonia, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (1901), ii. 276288. See also C. H. Turner, Prolegomena to the 
Testimonia of St. Cyprian, ib. (1905), vi. 246270. Concerning the origin 
of Quod idola dii non sint see Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1894), 
xv. 481487. 

5. THE LETTERS OF CYPRIAN. - The collection of the Letters 
of Cyprian contains, in the latest editions, eighty-one pieces or 
numbers, sixty-five of which are from his hand ; the others are mostly 

1 E P- 70, 5- 

51. ST. CYPRIAN. 197 

letters addressed to him. By reason of its very copious contents this 
collected correspondence of Cyprian is a primary source of authori 
tative information concerning the life and discipline of the primitive 
Church. All the letters date from the period of his episcopal rule in 
Carthage (248/249 2 5 8). In the Vienna or Hartel edition of 1 87 1 , they 
are numbered according to the Oxford recension of 1682; but later 
researches render necessary certain modifications in the accepted order 
of the correspondence. The letters may be divided into the following 
groups: a) Letters whose dates cannot be ascertained; they are I 4 
and 63 (ed. Hartel); they contain no references to contemporary 
persons or events, and probably were all composed before the per 
secution of Decius. Letter 63, entitled in the manuscripts ZV sacra- 
mento dominici calicis , is a precious confirmation of the traditional 
Catholic doctrine concerning the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. 
b) Letters sent to Carthage in the first period of the Decian per 
secution (250); they are 5 7 and 10 19, and were addressed from 
his hiding place to the clergy and the faithful of the city. They 
contain exhortations to prudence, to perseverance on the part of the 
confessors, to care of the poor, and also some reproaches and de 
cisions in the matter of the lapsi (15 19). c) The correspondence 
of Cyprian (representing the clergy of Carthage) with the Roman 
clergy in whose hands lay the government of the Church during the 
vacancy between the death of Fabian and the succession of Cornelius 
(Jan. 250 to March 251). In all there are twelve of these letters: 
8 9 20 21 22 27 28 30 31 35 36 37. In letter 20 Cyprian justifies 
his flight and explains his manner of dealing with the lapsi; he 
returns to the same subject in letters 27 and 35. In letters 30 and 36, 
the Roman clergy, by the hand of Novatian, assure Cyprian that 
they are in full agreement with him as to the treatment of the lapsi. 

d) Letters sent to Carthage in the last period of the Decian per 
secution (250 251); they are 23 26 29 32 34 38 43. Of these 
fourteen letters twelve were written by Cyprian; with the exception 
of two they were addressed to the clergy and the faithful of Carthage. 
The last three (41 43) deal with the schism of Felicissimus. 

e) Letters of the years 251 252, relative to the troubles occasioned 
by the schism of Novatian, and numbered 4455. Scarcely had 
Cyprian been accurately informed of what was occurring at Rome, 
when he came out with decisive energy in favor of the legitimate 
pope Cornelius; he could not, however, check the spread of the 
schism into Africa. Among the twelve letters of the group are six 
from Cyprian to Cornelius and two replies from the latter (49 50). 

f) Letters of the years 252 254, numbered 56 62 64 66,; the 
contents of which are of a miscellaneous nature. Letter 57 was sent 
by a Synod of Carthage 253 (?) to Pope Cornelius apropos of the lapsi; 
letter 64 was written by a Carthaginian provincial Synod in 252 (?) to 


a certain bishop Fidus, and treats mostly of the baptism of children, 
g) Letters of the years 254 256, numbered 67 75. Letter 67 is a 
sy nodical letter in the matter of Basilides and Martial, Spanish bishops, 
who had been deposed as lapsi; while letters 69 75 deal with the 
validity of heretical baptism. Letter 70 represents the opinions of the 
Synod of Carthage held in 255, and letter 72 the decision of the spring 
Synod of 256, both dealing with the subject of heretical baptism. 
There has also been preserved an extract from the minutes of the 
Synod of Carthage, September i. 256, in which the invalidity of 
heretical baptism was again asserted (Sententiae episcopormn numero 
LXXXVII de Jiaercticis baptizandis). It is usually placed not among 
the letters, but among the treatises of Cyprian. Letter 74 reveals in 
all its fulness the difference of opinion between Cyprian and Pope 
Stephen. Concerning letter 75 cf. 47, 7. h) Letters written during the 
persecution of Valerian (257- 258) and numbered 76 Si. In letter 76 
we have an admirable message of consolation from the exiled bishop 
to the martyrs in the mines. In letter Si the shepherd of Carthage, 
while awaiting a martyr s death, sends to his flock a final salutation. 

For the chronology of the Letters of Cyprian see O. Ritschl , De 
epistulis Cypriani-cis (Dissert, inaug.), Halle, 1885. Id., Cyprian von Kar- 
thago und die Verfassimg der Kirche, Gottingen, 1885, pp. 238 250. 
P. Monceaux, Chronologic des oeuvres de St. Cyprien et des conciles Afri- 
cains du temps, in Revue de Philologie (1900), xxxii, also the larger work 
of Monceaux quoted above (i of this ). L. Nelke, Die Chronologic der 
Korrespondenz Cyprians und der pseudo-cyprianischen Schriften Ad No- 
vatianum und Liber de rebaptismate (Dissert.), Thorn, 1902. - - For the 
correspondence of Cyprian and the Roman clergy during the year 250 see 
A. Harnack, in Theol. Abhandlungen, C. v. Weizsacker gewidmet, Frei 
burg, 1892, pp. 136. Concerning letter 8 see J. Haussleiter, Der Auf- 
bau der altchristl. Literatur, Berlin, 1898, pp. 1633. Letters 8 21 22 
and 23 24 are written in popular Latin; they have been edited anew by 
A.Miodotiski, Anonymus adv. aleatores, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1889, pp. 112 
to 126. On Letter 42 cf. E. Watson, Cyprianica, in Journal of Theol. Studies 
(19021903), iv. 131, and J. Chapman, The order of the Treatises and 
Letters m the Mss. of St. Cyprian, ib., iv. 103123. 

The Sententiae episcoporum are found in Hartel , 1. c., i. 433461. 
Nelke, 1. c., locates their composition about 255. The synodal letters 57 
64 67 70 72 and the Sententiae are also found in Routh, Reliquiae sacrae 
(2) in. 93 131; for the annotationes see pp. 132 217. 

A Greek version of the Sententiae was first published (complete) by 

P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris eccles. antiquissimae graece, Leipzig, 1856, 

PP- 37 55- Th e lost letters of Cyprian are discussed by Harnack, Gesch. 

altchristl. Litteratur, i. 692. Id. , Uber verlorene Briefe und Akten- 

sich aus der cyprianischen Briefsammlung ermitteln lassen, in 

lexte und Lntersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 1902, viii. 2. Fr. v. Soden, 

cypriamsche Briefsammlung. Geschichte ihrer Entstehung und Uber- 

heferung, ib., new series, Leipzig, 1904, x. 3. 

6. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. - The glorious name of Cyprian was 
on invoked to cover many an supposititious composition, a) The 


De laude martyrii, a bombastic sermon in praise of martyrdom, 
reminding one of Vergil rather than of Holy Writ, must be looked on 
as spurious, if only because of its style. Nevertheless, it figures among 
the works of Cyprian in the Catalogue of 359. Harnack s ascription 
of the authorship to Novatian has been refuted by Weyman. 
b) Adversus Judaeos, also a sermon, which in vigorous rhetorical 
diction exhorts Israel to enter into itself and do penance ; it is likewise 
quoted as a work of Cyprian in the Catalogue of 359. It was formerly 
supposed that the Latin text was a translation from the Greek, but 
it is itself the original. The author must be sought for, with Harnack 
and Landgraf, among the friends of Novatian ; possibly it was written 
by Novatian himself, c) De montibus Sina et Sion, written in popular 
Latin, contains some obscure remarks on the relations of the Old 
and New Testaments. Harnack refers it to the first half of the third 
century, d) De spectaculis , against the frequentation of heathen 
plays and theatres, is based on the homonymous work of Tertullian. 
The introduction shows that it was written by a bishop living at 
some distance from his flock. Wolfflin holds it to be a genuine 
work of Cyprian; Weymann and Demmler maintain that it belongs 
to Novatian. e) De bono pudicitiae, written very probably by the 
author of De spectaculis, is a spirited elogium of chastity. Matzinger 
failed to establish the authorship of Cyprian, while Weymann and 
Demmler argue well for the authorship of Novatian. f) Ad Nova- 
tianum, against his rigoristic views; internal evidence (c. 6) shows 
that it was written shortly after the persecution of Gallus and Volusian 
(251 253). Harnack maintains, without sufficient proof, that it is from 
the pen of Pope Sixtus II. (257 258); however, there is not sufficient 
evidence to show even that it was written in .Rome, g) De aleatoribiis, 
rather Adversus aleatores, a sermon against dice-playing as an invention 
of the devil, written in popular unpolished Latin but with vigor and 
boldness. Harnack believed it to be a work of Pope Victor I. ( 36, i), 
and therefore the oldest Christian work in Latin . It was soon 
observed, however, that the author knew and used writings of Cyprian, 
especially Ad Quirinum. In the introductory phrases (c. i) the author 
does not call himself pope, but rather only a bishop, and there is no 
positive proof that he occupied an Italian see. h) De rebaptismate is 
a polemical work in favor of the validity of heretical baptism and 
against the theory and practice of Cyprian. The author was a bishop, 
gifted with a taste for speculation ; possibly his name was Ursinus 1 . 
In his excellent researches, Ernst has shown that it was composed 
in Africa, very probably in Mauritania, and in 256, a little before 
the Synod of September I. of this year. Schiiler also agrees that it 
was composed in that year, but in Italy, he thinks, and after the 

1 Gennad, De viris ill., c. 27. 


synod just mentioned. Nelke inclines to a date between 255 and 258; 
probably the earlier figure, i) De pascha computus. In Hufmayr s 
opinion it was written in the fifth year of Gordian, before the Easter 
of 243 (c. 22), for the purpose of correcting the sixteen-year paschal 
cycle of Hippolytus ( 54, 6), by a cleric resident outside of Rome, 

a) A. Harnack, Eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift Novatians vom 
Jahre 249 250 ( Cyprian , De laude martyrii), in Texte u. Untersuchungen, 
Leipzig, 1895, xiii. 4b; cf., against Harnack, C. Weyman, in Lit. Rund 
schau (1895), pp. 331 333. -- b) G. Landgraf, Uber den pseudo-cypria- 
nischen Traktat Adversus Iudaeos, in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie 
und Grammatik (1898), xi. 87 97; cf. Harnack, in Texte und Unter 
suchungen, xx, new series (1900) v. 3, 126 135. - - c) For De montibus 
Sina et Sion see Harnack, ib., 135 147. d) and e) Ed. Wolff tin, Cyprianus 
de spectaculis, in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie und Grammatik (1892), 
vii. i 22. S. Matzinger, Des hi. Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus Traktat 
De bono pudicitiae (Inaug.-Diss.), Niirnberg, 1892. Against Wolff lin and 
Matzinger tf. Weyman, in Histor. Jahrb. (1892), xiii. 737 748; (1893), xiv. 
330 f. , and A. Dcmmler, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 223 271. 
- f) A. Harnack, Eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift des Papstes Sixtus IT. 
vom Jahre 257/8, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1895, xiii i, i 
to 70; cf. ib., xx, new series (1900), v 3, 116 126. Against Harnack 
see Julichcr, in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1896), pp. 19 22; Funk, in Theol. 
Quartalschr. (1896), Ixxviii. 691 693; Benson, Cyprian, London, 1897, pp. 557 
to 564. According to A. Rombold , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii. 
546 60 1, Ad Novatianum was written by Cyprian in 255 or 256. L. Nelke 
maintains (see no. 5 of this ) that very probably Pope Cornelius was its 
author and wrote it about 252. g) New separate editions of Adv. 
aleatores were published by A. Miodonski , Erlangen and Leipzig, 1889 
(with a German version), and by A. Hilgenfeld, Freiburg, 1889. A. Harnack, 
Der pseudo-cyprianische Traktat De aleatoribus etc., in Texte und Unter 
suchungen, Leipzig, 1888, v. i; cf. ib., xx, new series (1900), v 3, 112 
to 116. Against Harnack see Funk, in Histor. Jahrb. (1889), x. i 22, 
and Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 209 
to 236; Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1889), pp. 41 43, 49 51, 
and in Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 386 389; Etude 
critique sur 1 opuscule De aleatoribus par les membres du seminaire 
d histoire ecclesiastique etabli a 1 Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, 
1891, with appendix: Une lettre perdue de Saint Paul et le De aleatori- 
bus, Louvain, 1893. -- h) For De rcbaptismate see J. Ernst, in Zeitschr. 
fur kathoL Theol. (1896), xx. 193255 360362; (1898), xxii. 179180; 
(1900), xxiv. 425462; also in Histor. Jahrb. (1898), xix. 499522 737 
to 771. Cf. W. Schiller, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1897), xl. 
555 608; A. Beck, in Katholik (1900), i. 4064. Id., Kirchl. Studien 
und Quellen, Hamburg, 1903, pp. i 58, makes Sixtus II. author of De re- 
bapttsmate, but doubts somewhat the genuineness of cc. 16 18. i) E. Huf- 
mayr, Die pseudo-cyprianische Schrift De pascha computus (Progr.), Augs 
burg, 1896. 

Many other pseudo-cyprianic works were written after the time of 
Constantine. For Ad Vigilium episcopum de iudaica incredtditate see 16. 
The De duodecim abusivis saeculi (ed. Hartel, iii. 152 173) still awaits an 
investigator of its literary history. The De singularitate clericorum (Hartel, iii. 
173220) is identical (according to Dom Morin, in the Revue Benedictine 
[1891], viii. 236 f.) with the Ad confessor es et virgines of the priest Macrobius, 


and was written about the middle of the fourth century (Gennad., De vir. ill., 
c. 5). A. Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat De singularitate cleri- 
corum, ein Werk des donatistischen Bischofs Macrobius in Rom, in Texte 
und Untersuchungen , new series, Leipzig, 1903, ix. 3, accepts and con 
firms the thesis of Dom Morin. The De duplici martyrio ad Fortunatum 
(Hartel, iii. 220 247) was unmasked by Fr. Lezius, in Neue Jahrb. fur deutsche 
Theol. (1895), iv. 95 no 184 243, and shown to be a daring forgery of 
its first editor, Erasmus. - - For the poems, current also under the name 
of Tertullian, De Genesi , De Sodoma and De lona , also for Ad Flavium 
Felice m de resurrectione mortuorum cf. 50, 8 ; for the poem Ad senator em 
88, 7; for De pascha 87, 8. The Exhortatio de paenitentia , lacking 
in Hartel s edition, and recently edited by A. Miodoriski (Cracow, 1893) 
is a collection of scriptural texts made for the purpose of refuting the 
rigorism of Novatian, and dates, according to C. Wunderer, Bruchstiicke 
einer afrikanischen Bibeliibersetzung in der pseudo-cyprianischen Schrift 
Exhort. de paenit. (Progr. , Erlangen, 1889), from about the year 400. 
For other apocryphal works, lacking in Hartel, cf. Harnack, Gesch. der 
altchristl. Literatur, i. 722 f. The Caena Cypriani (cf. 30, 5) and two Ora- 
tione.s {Hartel, iii. 144 151) are located by Harnack about the beginning 
of the fifth century, and attributed to Cyprianus. Gallus ( 88, 2), in Texte 
und Untersuchungen, xix new series (1899), i y - 3^- Michel, Gebet und Bild, 
Leipzig, 1902, pp. 77 ff., differs from Harnack. On all the works in the 
Appendix to Cyprian cf. P. Monceaux, Etudes critiques sur 1 appendice de 
St. Cyprien, in Revue de Philol. (1902), xxxvi. 63 98, and also his Cyprien 
in i of this . 

52. Arnobius. 

St. Jerome remarks 1 that his name suggests a Greek origin. He 
flourished in the reign of Diocletian (284 305) at Sicca in Africa 
Proconsulates, where he was known as a distinguished professor of 
rhetoric. By a dream (somniis) he was led to become a Christian. 
In order to overcome the diffidence of the bishop to whom he applied 
for reception into the Christian community, he published a polemical 
work against heathenism which Jerome calls 2 Adversus gentes, but in 
the only (ninth-century) manuscript that has reached us is entitled 
Adversus nationes. Internal evidence shows that it was composed 
during the persecution of Diocletian (303 305) or shortly afterwards 
(cf. i. 13; ii. 5; iv. 36). The contents of the work fall into two 
parts : the first two books are mostly taken up with an apology for 
Christianity, while the other five are a polemical attack on heathenism. 
In the first part he refutes the trite accusation that the Christians 
are responsible for the actual evils of the time because they had 
roused the anger of the gods. The religious spirit of the Christians 
is guaranteed by their faith in a chief and supreme God (Deus prin- 
ceps, Deus summus) and in Christ who died on the Cross as man, 
but by His miracles proved Himself to be God. That the Christian 
religion is the true one is proved by its rapid spread, by its influence 
on the manners of barbarian peoples, and by its harmony with the 

1 Chron. ad a. Abr. 2343 = A. D. 327. - De viris ill., c. 79. 


opinions of the greatest philosophers. The mention of Plato, as in 
many things a herald of Christian truth, furnishes the occasion for a 
long and remarkable excursus on the soul (ii. 14 62). Passing thence 
to his polemic against heathenism, he undertakes to show that the 
heathen teaching concerning the divinity is both contradictory and 
immoral (iii v). In the sixth book he describes with caustic 
severity the forms of heathen worship, the temples and the statues; 
in the seventh book he treats of the sacrificial rites and ceremonies. 
(The latter book seems really to close with c. 37. The following 
chapters 38 51 are apparently sketches for some new work against 
heathenism.) The work of Arnobius did not meet with warm ad 
miration in later Christian times. The declamatory pathos of the old 
rhetorician, his affected and involved phraseology, the multiplicity of 
interrogations, become at length very wearisome to the reader 1 , all the 
more so as in Arnobius warmth of conviction and clearness of thought 
are not prominent. He seems to have hastily put together his apology 
for Christianity before he had got rid of remnants of heathenism. 
His religious opinions offer a curious mixture of Christian and heathen 
ideas : Christ is not equal to the Dcus summits. In the supposition 
that the heathen gods really exist, they must be gods of a second 
order, owing their existence and divine character to the God of the 
Christians, to whose family they in a sense belong (i. 28; iii. 2 3; 
vii. 35). The human soul is not the work of God, but of some other 
celestial being. It is something half divine and half material (mediae 
qualitatis, anceps ambiguaque natura), in itself perishable, but capable 
by the grace of God of receiving an imperishable character (ii. 14 if.). 
He draws from the didactic poem of Lucretius (De rerum natura) 
his arguments against an absolute eternity, and from the Platonists 
and Neoplatonists his arguments against the annihilation of the soul. 
The second part of the work, especially books iii v, has always at 
tracted the attention of philologists because of its very copious mytho 
logical information. He appears to have studied the Roman mythology 
in the (lost) works of the Neoplatonist Cornelius Labeo, and Greek 
mythology in the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria ( 38, 3). 

The text of Arnobius is based exclusively on Cod. Paris. 1661, of the 
ninth century; cf. 24, i. The Editio princeps is that of F. Sabaeus, 
Rome, 1543. For later editions cf. Schoemmann , Bibliotheca historico- 
literaria Patrum Latinorum, i. 160175. N CW editions or reprints were 
brought out by J. C. Orelli , 3 vols. , Leipzig, 18161817; Migne , PL., 
Paris, 1844, v; G. F. Hildebrand, Halle, 1844; Fr. Oehkr, Leipzig, 1846 
(Gersdorf, Bibl.Patr. eccles. Lat. sel., xii). The best is that of A. Reifferscheid, 
Vienna, 1875 (Corpus script, eccl. Lat., iv). Cf. Id., in Indices scholarum 
Vratislav. 18771878, pp. 910; 1879 1880, pp. 8 10. M. Bastgen, 
Quaestiones de locis ex Arnobii Adv. nat. opere selectis (Dissert, inaug.), 
Miinster, 1887. "~ German versions of Arnobius were made by Fr. A. 

1 Hicr., Ep. 58, 10. 


v. Besnard, Landshut, 1842; J. Alleker, Trier, 1858. -- E. Freppel, Com- 
modien, Arnobe, Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. 28 93. On the diction of 
Arnobius see C. Stange, De Arnobii oratione (Progr.), Saargemiind,, 1893; 
J. Scharnagl, De Arnobii maioris latinitate (2 Progr.), Gorz, 1894 1895, 
i ii; P. Spindler, De Arnobii genere dicendi (Dissert. }, Strassburg, 1901. 
- For the sources of Arnobius see G. Kettner, Cornelius Labeo (Progr.), 
Naumburg, 1877 ; A. Rohricht , De Clemente Alex. Arnobii in irridendo 
gentilium cultu deorum auctore (Progr.), Hamburg, 1893. F. Dal Pane, 
Sopra la fonte di un passo (v. 18) di Arnobio, in Studi Italiani di Filo- 
logia Classica (1901), ix. 30. -- For the doctrine of Arnobius see K. B. 
Francke, Die Psychologic und Erkenntnislehre des Arnobius (Inaug.-Diss.), 
Leipzig, 1878; A. Rohricht, Die Seelenlehre des Arnobius, Hamburg, 1893; 
E. F. Schulze, Das Ubel in der Welt nach der Lehre des Arnobius (Inaug.- 
Diss.), Jena, 1896; E. Vorontzow , Apologet Arnobii Afrikanei (Russian), 
Kharkon (1904), ii. 319338. 

53. Lactantius. 

1. HIS LIFE. -- Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, for such was 
probably his full name, was, according to St. Jerome *, a disciple of 
Arnobius, and unquestionably a native of Africa, though local 
Italian patriotism, without any evidence, claims the honor of his birth 
for Firmum (Fermo), in the territory of Picenum. His parents were 
heathens, and the date of his conversion to Christianity is unknown. 
It is probable that he had already won fame in Africa as a rhetorician 
when Diocletian made him professor of Latin rhetoric at Nicomedia, 
the new capital of the empire. The persecution of Diocletian com 
pelled him to quit this office; his subsequent life was probably one 
of much privation. At an advanced age he appears in Gaul as the 
tutor of Crispus, the son of Constantine. The time and place of his 
death are unknown. 

S. Brandt, Uber die dualistischen Zusatze und die Kaiseranreden bei 
Lactantius. Nebst einer Untersuchung liber das Leben des Lactantius und 
die Entstehungsverhaltnisse seiner Prosaschriften (four Essays), in Sitzungs- 
berichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der kgl. Akad. der Wissensch. , Vienna, 
18891891, cxviii cxxv; cf. T. E. Mecchi , Lattanzio e la sua patria, 
Fermo, 1875. P. Meyer, Quaestionum Lactahtiarum partic. i. (Progr.), 
Jiilich, 1878. R. Pichon, Lactance. Etude sur le mouvement philosophique 
et religieux sous le regne de Constantin, Paris, 1901. 

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. Lactantius, like his master Arnobius, 
w r as more skilful in his onslaught upon heathenism than in his defence 
of Christianity. Utinam, says Jerome 2 , tarn nostra affinnare potuisset 
quam facile aliena destruxit! Withal, he accomplished more than 
Arnobius. He is more comprehensive and versatile in his literary 
work, while his style is more chaste, natural and pleasing than that 
of any of his contemporaries, vir omnium suo tempore eloquentissimus, 
quasi quidam fluvius eloquenliae Tullianac^. The humanists called 

1 De viris ill., c. 80; Chron. ad a. Abr. 2333. 2 Ep. 58, 10. 

3 Hicr., Chron, ad a. Abr. 2333; Ep. 58, 10. 


him the Christian Cicero, and in general exhibited an exaggerated 
admiration for his writings. As early as the fifteenth century his 
writings, extant in numerous and ancient codices, went through a 
long series of editions. The real strength of Lactantius is in his 
formal grace and elegance of expression; like his heathen model he 
lacks solidity and depth. He had read extensively, and retained and 
assimilated with great ease the learning of others, which he reproduced 
in correct and polished phraseology. If we except St. Jerome, and 
perhaps St. Augustine, no Christian writer of antiquity was so deeply 
versed in Latin and Greek literature; but conversely his knowledge of 
ecclesiastical literature, and still more so of the Scripture, was equally 
meagre and imperfect. St. Jerome accuses him of downright imperitia 
scripturarum, for failing to recognize a third person in the Divinity, 
or the personal distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father 
and the Son 1 . He leaned towards Chiliasm 2 , and his entire doctrinal 
and ethical teaching is suffused with a peculiar dualism, best formu 
lated in his thesis that evil is of necessity presupposed to good 3 . 

The manuscript-tradition of the works of Lactantius is the subject of 
an exhaustive study by Brandt in the prolegomena of his edition. The 
oldest manuscripts are a Cod. Bononiensis of the sixth or seventh cen 
tury (Div. inst., De ira Dei, DC opif. Dei, Epitome div. inst.) and a 
Cod. Sangallensis rescriptus of the sixth or seventh century (Div. inst.). 
The editio princeps appeared at Subiaco in 1465, it is the first dated 
book printed in Italy. During the eighteenth century appeared the com 
plete editions of Chr. A. Neumann, Gottingen, 1736; J. L. Buenemann, 
Leipzig, 1739- J- B- Le Brun and N. Lenglet du Fresnoy, 2 vols., Paris, 
1748; F. Eduardus a S. Xaverio, u vols., Rome, 1754 1759. The edition 
of Le Brun and du Fresnoy is reprinted in Migne , PL. , Paris , 1 844 , vi 
to vii). Brandt was the first to make a comprehensive and critical use 
of the extant manuscripts : L. C. F. Lactanti opera omnia, rec. S. Brandt 
et G. Laubmann, 2 vols., Vienna, 18901897 (Corpus script, eccles. Lat. 
xix xxvii). - P. Bertold, Prolegomena zu Lactantius (Progr.), Metten, 
1 86 1. Freppel, Commodien, Arnobe, Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. 94 148. 
- H. Limberg, Quo iure Lactantius appellatur Cicero christianus r (Dissert. 
inaug.), Minister, 1896. H. Glacscncr, Several grammatical and philological 
articles, in Musee Beige (1901), v. 527. S. Brandt, Lactantius und Lu 
cretius, in Neue Jahrb. fur Philol. und Padag. (1891), cxliii. 225259. 
P. G. Frotscher, Des Apologeten Lactantius Verhaltnis zur griechischen 
Philosophic (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1895. -- E. Overlach , Die Theologie 
des Lactantius (Progr.), Schwerin, 1858. M. E. Heinig, Die Ethik des Lac 
tantius (Inaug.-Diss.), Grimma, 1887. Fr. Marbach, Die Psychologic des 
Firmianus Lactantius (Inaug.-Diss.), Halle, 1889. 

3. DIVINAE INSTITUTIONES. - His most important work is a 
series of religious instructions in seven books , Divinarum institutio- 
num libri VII, at once an apology and a manual of theology. The 
purpose of the author is first to put to silence all the opponents 

1 Comm. in Gal. ad iv. 6; Ep. 84, 7. * Div. inst., vii. 14 ff. 

3 Cf. De ira Dei, c. 15. 


of the Christian faith. Proceeding then from the negative to the af 
firmative, he undertakes to describe the whole contents of the Chris 
tian doctrine (v. 4). The title itself is instructive; he borrowed 
it from the current manuals of legal science 1 . The first two books, 
De falsa religione and De origine err or is , are devoted to the 
refutation of the superstitions of polytheism and to the demonstra 
tion of monotheism as the only true religion. The third book, 
De falsa sapientia, attacks the philosophy of the heathen, as being, 
next to their false religion, the source of their errors. From the 
mutually destructive systems of philosophy one turns with satisfaction 
to God s revelation of Himself, which concept furnishes the transit 
to the fourth book, De vera sapientia et religione. True wisdom 
consists in the knowledge and worship of God ; these have been 
given to mankind through Christ, the Son of God. The fifth book, 
De iustitia , treats of that justice to which men return through 
Christ. Its basis is that piety (pietas) which is rooted in the know 
ledge of God , and its essence is that equity (aequitas) which sees 
in all men children of God. The sixth book, De vero cultu, goes 
to show that in the exercise of this justice lies the true worship of 
God. Hereupon he explains the two essential qualities of all justice, 
religio and misericordia vel humanitas. In the seventh book, finally, 
he crowns his work with a description of heaven (De vita beata), 
the reward of all true worship of God. Lactantius is the first among 
the Western Christians to exhibit in a connected system the Chris 
tian views of life and man. He knows and uses the works of 
earlier apologists such as Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Cyprian and 
Theophilus of Antioch. He quotes the Scripture occasionally from 
St. Cyprian s so-called Testimonia adversus ludaeos , but abounds 
still more in quotations from classic authors. This work was written 
during the persecution of Diocletian and Galerius (305 310) in part 
at Nicomedia and in part elsewhere (v. 2, 2; u, 15). The so-called 
dualistic phrases found in some manuscripts, to the effect that God 
willed and created evil (ii. 8, 6; vii. 5, 27) 2 are interpolations, but 
according to Brandt inserted as early as the fourth century. Brandt 
attributes to this interpolator certain more or less lengthy discourses 
to Constantine, that are found in the same manuscripts (i. I, 12; vii. 
27, 2 etc.); others hold them to be genuine elements of a second 
edition of the work. 

Brandt , Uber die dualistischen Zusiitze und die Kaiseranreden (see 
53, i). In favor of the genuineness of the dualistic additions see J. G. Th. 
Miillcr, Quaestiones Lactantianae (Dissert, inaug.), Gottingen, 1875, an d of 
the discourses to Constantine J. Reiser, in Theol. Quartalschr. (i8gS), Ixxx. 
548 588. For the Scriptural quotations see the edition of Brandt, \. c. 
(1890), i. xcvn ff. The date of composition is discussed by Lobmullcr, 
in Katholik (1898), ii. i 23. 

1 Institutiones civilis iuris, i. i, 12. " Cf. De opificio Dei, c. 19, 8. 


the request of a certain Pentadius, whom he addresses as Pentadi 

f rater, Lactantius prepared , about 315, a summary of his large 
work and entitled it Epitome divinarum institutionum. It is really 
a new, but abbreviated recension of the work. The suspicions oc 
casionally manifested concerning its genuineness are nowise justified. 
In the treatise De opificio Dei, addressed to Demetrianus, a former 
disciple, and written before the Institutiones (about 304 ; cf. c. 6, 15; 
15, 6; 20), Lactantius maintains against the Epicureans, that the 
human organism is a creation of God, a work of Providence. 
After an anatomical and physiological description of the human body 
and a teleological commentary on its constitution (cc. 5 13), he dis 
cusses in the second part some psychological questions (cc. 16 19); 
the dualistic addition in c. 19, 8 are discussed above ( 53, 3). 
Brandt is of opinion that Lactantius composed the first part of this 
work on the basis of some Hermetic book. The treatise De ira 
Dei, addressed to a certain Donatus, and written after the Institu 
tiones (c. 2, 4 6; n, 2) 1 is directed against the Epicurean doctrine 
of the absolute indifference (apathia) of the divinity; from the very 
nature of religion Lactantius deduces the necessity of a divine wrath. 

The Epitome was translated into German by P. H. Janscn, Kempten, 
1875 ( Bibl - der Kirchenvater) ; the De ira Dei by R. Storf , ib.; the De 
opificio Dei by A. Knappitsch , Graz, 1898. For the sources of the De 
opif. Dei cf. Brandt, Wiener Studien (1891), xiii. 255 292. 

5. DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM. --In this work are narrated the 
wretched deaths of the imperial persecutors of the Christians ; indeed, 
its purpose is to show that the God of the Christians has truly 
manifested his power and greatness against the enemies of His name 
(c. i, 7). In the introduction it treats briefly of Nero, Domitian, Decius, 
Valerian, and Aurelian. The closing days of Diocletian, Maximian, 
Galerius, Severus and Maximinus are described with greater fulness. 
The narrator writes from personal experience ; in the years 3 1 1 and 
313 he was resident in Nicomedia (cc. 35 48; cf. c. i), where the 
book was probably written in 314. The entire story breathes an 
atmosphere of vivid personal impressions received during those days 
of horror; it has not yet been proved that the narrator has any 
where consciously perverted the truth of history. Only one (eleventh 
century) manuscript of the work has reached us. It is entitled: 
Lucn Caecihi liber ad Donatum confessoretn de mort. persec. In 
many manuscripts Lactantius is called Lucius Caelius or Lucius Cae- 
cilius, and we have seen already that he dedicated his treatise De 
ira Dei to a certain Donatus. According to Jerome 2 , Lactantius 
left a work De persecution which universal consent identifies with the 

1 Cf. Div. inst., ii. 17, 5. 2 De viris ilLj c go 


De mortibus persecutorum. Finally there is a minute correspondence 
of style and diction between this work and the other writings of 
Lactantius. Its fundamental concept appears also in the Institutiones 
(v. 23). Even the peculiar features of the work, its irritated senti 
ment and impassioned tone are easily understood from the nature of 
the subject-matter. The most recent editor, Brandt, stands almost 
alone in maintaining that Lactantius is not the author of the De 
mortibus persecutorum. There is no solid basis, however, for his 
hypothesis that Lactantius spent the time from 311 to 313 in Gaul. 

This work was first edited by Stephen Baluze, Paris, 1679 ; f r new separate 
editions we are indebted to Fr. Dilbner, Paris, 1863, 1879; Brandt, Vienna, 
1897. It is reprinted in Hurtcr, SS. Patr. opusc. sel. , Innsbruck, 1873, 
xxii. It was translated into German by P. H. Jansen , Kempten, 1875 
(Bibl. der Kirchenvater). The question of authorship is discussed by Ad. 
Ebert, in Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der kgl. sachs. Gesellsch. der 
Wissensch. , Leipzig, 1870, xxii. 115 138 (for Lactantius); Brandt, Uber 
die Entstehungsverhaltnisse der Prosaschriften des Lactantius (see 53, i) 
pp. 22 122 and in Neue Jahrb. fiir Philol. und Padag. (1893), cxlvii. 
121 138 203 223 (against Lactantius); J. Belser, in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1892), Ixxiv. 246 293 439 464; (1898), Ixxx. 547 596 (for Lactantius); 
O. Seeck, Gesch. des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Berlin, 1895, i. 426 430 
(for Lactantius). -- J. Rothfuchs, Qua historiae fide Lactantius usus sit in 
libroDe mort. persec. (Progr.), Marburg, 1862. Belser, Grammatisch-kritische 
Erkliirung von Lactantius De mort. persec. c. 34 (Progr.), Ellwangen, 
1889. For minor articles of A. Crivellucci , A. Mantini and Brandt see 
Studi Storici (1893), ii. 45 48 374 388 444464; (1894), iii. 65 70; 
(1896), v. 555 571. y. Kopp, Uber den Verfasser des Buches De morti 
bus persecutorum (Dissert.), Munich, 1902 (for Lactantius). 

6. DE AVE PHOENICE. SPURIOUS POEMS. - - The poem De av e 
Phoenice relates in eighty-five distichs the myth of the miraculous 
bird that dwelt in the sacred grove of the Sun- God as his priest, 
whence every thousand years it came on earth to mount its own 
funeral pyre, and from its own ashes rose to a new life. There is 
a long series of witnesses, beginning with Gregory of Tours 1 , for the 
authorship of Lactantius ; most modern critics admit it, even Brandt, 
though he ascribes it not to the Christian but to the heathen period 
of his life. Nevertheless, the work has a specific Christian color, 
and both in matter and style exhibits many Christian peculiarities. 
The Phoenix was looked on as a symbol of the resurrection. The 
poem De resurrectione (De pascha) is not a work of Lactantius, 
but rather of Venantius Fortunatus 2 . The poem De passione Domini 
belongs to the end of the fifteenth century. 

De are Phoenice in Brandt s edition (1893), ii. i, 135 147; cf. xviii 
to xxii. On the origin of the myth see H. Dechent , in Rhein. Mus. fiir 
Philol., new series (1880), xxxv. 39 55; R. Loebe, in Jahrb. fiir protest. 
Theol. (1892), xviii. 34 65; Brandt, in Rhein. Mus. fiir Philol., new series 

1 De cursu stellarum, c. 12. ~ Cann., iii. 9. 


(1892), xlvii. 390 403; A. Knappitsch, De L. C. F. Lactanti ave Phoe- 
nice (Progr.), Graz, 1896 (with a German metrical version). The De 
passione Domini is in Brandt, 1. c. ; pp. 148 151; cf. xxii xxxiii. C, Pas 
cal, Sul carme De ave Phoenice attribute a Lattanzio, Napole, 1904. 
For a collection of metrical enigmas see below 53, 7 a. 

7. LOST WRITINGS. FRAGMENTS. - - Lactantius intended to pu 
blish a work against all heresies 1 , and another against the Jews 2 , 
but he seems not to have carried out his purpose. Several other works 
have perished : a) Symposium quod adolescentulus scripsit Africae *, 
perhaps a discussion of grammatical or rhetorical questions in the 
form of a banquet-dialogue. The title of Symposium may have been 
the occasion for attributing to him one hundred metrical enigmas, 
each in three hexameters, that are otherwise adjudged to a certain 
Symphosius; b) Hodoeporicum (bdotxopixov) Africa usque Nicomediam 
hexametris scriptum versibus^\ c) Grammaticus^ ; d) Ad Asclepiadem 
libri duo Q ; the recipient is probably identical with the homonymous 
author of a work addressed to Lactantius , De providentia summi 
Dei 1 ; e) Ad Probum epistolarum libri quattuor^. This is perhaps 
the collection of letters to which pope Damasus refers when he tells 
us 9 that Lactantius wrote letters in which he dealt mostly with 
metre, geography and philosophy, but rarely touched on matters of 
Christian theology; f) Ad Severum epistolariim libri duo^ ; g) Ad 
Demetrianum ( 53, 4) auditor em suum epistolarum libri duo^. The 
letters treated of the Holy Ghost, and of other subjects (cf. 53, 2). 
h) In a codex of the eighth or ninth century there is a fragment on 
divers passions hope, fear, love, hatred etc. - - with the marginal 
note Lactantius de motibus animi. It may be genuine, but cannot 
be definitely assigned to any of his writings. 

The collection of metrical enigmas is in Migne , PL., vii. 289298. 
It is not in the edition of Brandt; cf. Teuffel-Schwabe , Gesch. der rom. 
Literatur, 5. ed. , pp. 1152 f. For the other works mentioned see the 
quotations and fragments in Brandt, 1. c. (1893), ii. i, 155 160, with the 
pertinent literature. 

54. Hippolytus. 

i. His LIFE. - The authorship of the Refutation of all Heresies, 

xara xaocov alpiazcov I /^/oc, or Philosophumena (see 54, 3), a large 

and important work discovered in 1851, awakened much interest at 

Since then the authorship of the work has been extensively, 

but so far inconclusively, discussed. The first of its ten books was 

Div. inst, iv. 30, 14; De ira Dei. c. 2, 6. Div inst ^ vii> 26 

De viris ill., c. So. * Ib. 5 Ib 6 Ib 

* Div. inst, vii. 4, 17. s Hier> L c ^ 

10 Hier., De viris ill., c. 80 ; cf. c. in. n I b . 


long current under the name of Origen. That it could not be from 
his pen was wellk-nown from the title of bishop (dpytepareia) which 
the author gives himself in the preface, that being an office that 
Origen never filled. In 1842 Mynoides Mynas brought to Paris from 
Mount Athos a fourteenth-century manuscript containing books iv x 
of the work. They were edited by E. Miller in 1851, curiously enough 
as a work of Origen. The second and third books are still lacking. 
The authorship of Origen was at once rejected on all sides and five 
other possible authors suggested. These were Hippolytus, Beron, 
Cajus, Novatian and Tertullian. The preponderance of opinion was in 
favor of Hippolytus, for whom Dollinger (1853) and Volkmar (1855) 
pleaded with special success. It was easy to show that Beron, 
against whom Hippolytus was said to have written (xara Bypawoq), 
belonged at the earliest to the fourth century, nor could the claims 
of the Anti-Montanist Cajus be maintained in face of the critical argu 
ments opposed to it. In the course of the controversy the names 
of Novatian and Tertullian were gradually abandoned. In a general 
way the name of Hippolytus stands for the Philosophumena, as often 
as it becomes necessary to refer to some definite person as author 
of the work. It is true that this work is not mentioned in the ancient 
catalogue of the writings of Hippolytus ( 54, 2. But other writings 
claimed as his by the author in the preface to the Philosophumena, 
e. g. the so-called Syntagma (Philos. prooem.), the Chronicon (x. 30), and 
the work on the nature of the Universe (x. 32), are otherwise known to 
be works of Hippolytus. There is also a striking similarity between the 
Philosophumena and other acknowledged writings of Hippolytus, e. g. 
the work against Noetus, and DC Antichristo. Finally, the meagre 
and contradictory information concerning Hippolytus that antiquity 
has bequeathed us is placed in an entirely new light by the details 
furnished in the Philosophumena concerning the life and times of its 
author. Not only are the known facts of Hippolytus s life notably 
increased, but the former accounts of him are rendered now for the 
first time intelligible. In Western tradition Hippolytus had become the 
centre of a legendary cycle, through the mazes of which it was difficult 
to reach the kernel of historical truth. The Philosophumena put an 
end to the almost unexampled confusion that hitherto had surrounded 
his person. - - The Oriental tradition was right, according to this 
work, in maintaining that Hippolytus, a disciple of St. Irenaeus 1 , 
had really been a bishop of Rome. He was the rival of Pope Cal- 
lixtus (217 222), the head of a schismatical party, and therefore 
one of the first anti-popes known to history. It is true that our 
only account of this situation comes from the Philosophumena itself 
(ix. 7 ii 12), but we cannot therefore accuse its author of a de- 

1 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 121. 


liberate intention to calumniate his adversary. Nevertheless, we must 
carefully distinguish between the facts which are related and the coloring 
that the narrative puts upon them. Callixtus appears in ecclesiastical 
history as one of the most worthy among the popes. His adversary 
was a subordinationist in doctrine, and in church discipline he held 
a sectarian rigorism. Callixtus had softened the severe penitential dis 
cipline by permitting those guilty of adultery or of fornication to be 
again received into ecclesiastical communion, after performance of 
the penance enjoined 1 . In other matters also he had shown himself 
disposed to gentler measures, e. g. with regard to the reconciliation 
of those who returned from heresy or schism, the treatment of un 
worthy bishops, the advancement of bigamists to the higher ec 
clesiastical offices, and the like. To Hippolytus all this savoured of 
unprincipled levity (Philos. ix. 12), though he does not undertake to 
justify his passionate denunciation of it. In so far as his views are 
not the result of personal opposition to Callixtus, they can only 
represent an erroneous concept of the nature and scope of ecclesiastical 
authority, and a lack of sympathetic intelligence for the needs of 
the time. He describes himself frequently as the most decided ad 
versary of the Patripassian doctrine, of the Novatians, and of Sa- 
bellius. But his own theology aroused criticism, and was declared by 
Callixtus a pure ditheism (Philos. ix. 12). According to Hippolytus the 
Logos existed first impersonally in the Father, undistinguished from 
Him in substance; he was the unspoken word of the Father, kofOQ 
TOQ; later, when the Father willed it, and as He willed it, 
tyffev, xa&coc; -/jttltyffsy 2 , the Word came forth from the Father, 
zpcxpopixoc, , as another than He, zrzpoQ. Only in the Incar 
nation did He become the true and perfect Son of the Father. The 
alleged relation between the Father and the Son is therefore strictly 
subordinationist in character. Hippolytus does not hesitate even to say 
(Philos. x. 33) that God, had He so willed, might have made God 
also any man (or the man), instead of the Logos (el yap $zov ae 
jj&etyae xotyaat, iduvaro- s/stQ TO~J M^oo TO TTapddeirfjtaj. The reproach 
of ditheism is therefore in so far true that Hippolytus recognized a 
distinction of substance between the Father and the Logos; the 
latter was only genetically God. But when Hippolytus says of Callixtus 
(Philos. ix. 12) that he falls sometimes into the error of Sahellius 
and sometimes into that of Theodotus, he can only mean that on 
the one hand Callixtus maintained the equality and unity of nature 
in the Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius, the 
distinction of persons; and on the other maintained the perfect hu 
manity of the Redeemer, without denying His divinity, as did Theo- 
dotus. The schism of Hippolytus did not spread ; even in Rome 

Tert., De pudicit., c. I. 2 c i$oet., c. 10. 

54- HIPPOLYTUS. 211 

his faction seems to have been short-lived. There are many reasons 
for supposing that Hippolytus himself, shortly before his death, 
put an end to the schism. In 235 he was banished to Sardinia 
in the company of St. Pontianus, the second successor of Callixtus. 
There, if not earlier and at Rome, Pope and Anti-pope appear to 
have become reconciled. There, too, both succumbed to the suffer 
ings and privations of their lot. Their bodies were finally interred 
at Rome on the same day, August 13. in 236 or 237; the same 
date was also chosen for the commemoration of both. 

y. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, Ratisbon, 1853. G. Volkmar, 
Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte bis zum Nicanum. i : Hippolytus und 
die romischen Zeitgenossen, Ziirich, 1855. Hergenr other , Hippolytus oder 
Novatian? in Osterreich. Vierteljahresschr. fur kathol. Theol. (1863), ii. 289 
to 340 (be defends the authorship of Hippolytus). C. de Smedt S. J., Disser- 
tationes selectae in primam aetatem historiae eccles., Gand, 1876, pp. 83 
to 189 (for Hippolytus). Grisar, Bedarf die Hippolytusfrage einer Re 
vision? in Zeitschr. fiir kathol. Theol. (1878), ii. 505533 (for Novatian). 
Funk, Uber den Verfasser der Philosophumenen , in Theol. Quartalschr. 
(1881), Ixiii. 423 464; Id., Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Unter- 
suchungen (1899), ii. 161 197 (for Hippolytus). y. B. de Rossi , in Bul- 
lettino di archeologia cristiana, Ser. 3, a. vi (1881), 5 55; Ser. 4, a. i 
(1882), 9 76, a. ii (1883), 60 65, maintains that Hippolytus did not die 
in Sardinia but returned to Rome in the reign of Philippus Arabs (244 to 
249) and took part in the schism of Novatian. In the persecution of Va 
lerian (253 260) he was condemned as a Christian, and on his way to 
death recognized the error of his ways and besought his friends to 
return to the unity of the Church. C. Erbes , Die Lebenszeit des Hippo 
lytus, in Jahrbticher f. protest. Theol. (1888), xiv. 611 656 (Hippolytus died 
Jan. 29. /3O., 251). y. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I (S. Cle 
ment of Rome), London, 1890, ii. 317 477: Hippolytus of Portus (Hippo 
lytus was a bishop of the floating population in the maritime town of 
Portus, but resident at Rome). G. Picker, Studien zur Hippolytfrage, Leipzig, 
1893 (supports the theses of Dollinger as against the objections of de Rossi 
and Lightfoot). The most important testimonia antiquorum concerning 
Hippolytus are found in H. Achelis, Hippolytstudien, in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 4, i 62. K. J. Neumann, Hippolytus von 
Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und Welt. Neue Funde und Forschungen 
zur Geschichte von Staat und Kirche in der romischen Kaiserzeit, Leipzig, 
1892, fasc. i. y. Drdseke, Zum Syntagma des Hippolytus, in Zeitschr. fiir 
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 58 80; Id. , Noe tos und die Noetianer 
in der Hippolytus-Refutatio ix. 6 10, ib. (1903), xlvi. 213 232. 

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. Shortly before or after his death, 
a marble statue was erected at Rome in honor of Hippolytus by 
his schismatical followers. In 1551, during the progress of certain 
excavations, it was discovered intact, with the exception of the head. 
On either side of the chair in which the saint is seated his paschal 
cycle has been inscribed , while on the rounded surface that unites 
the back of the chair with the left side of the same are likewise 
inscribed the titles of many of his works. This catalogue is com- 



pleted and illustrated by the accounts given in Eusebius 1 , St. Jerome 2 , 
and other writers. The works of Hippolytus fill us with astonishment, 
so extensive and varied are they, while for erudition no Western 
contemporary can approach him. On occasions, however, he was 
content to repeat himself, as is evident from a comparison of his 
commentary on Daniel with his previous work De Antichristo. The 
better and greater part of his labors was in the field of exegesis. 
Photius praises 3 the simplicity and clearness of his style, without 
pronouncing it really Attic. At present, with the exception of a fe\v 
imperfect works, we possess only fragments of Hippolytus, in Greek, 
Latin , Syriac , Coptic , Arabic , Ethiopic , Armenian , and Slavonic. 
The manuscript tradition of his writings could scarcelly be more 
broken and fragmentary; their remnants turn up in the remotest 
parts of the antique world. Often, indeed, these fragments must be 
re-shaped and their text cleansed from foreign scoria ; only here and 
there can the original text be restored with comparative freedom 
from gaps and breaks. 

The statue is reproduced in F. X. Kraus, Real-Encyklopadie der christl. 
Altertiimer, Freiburg, 18821886, i. 660 664; cf. J. Picker, Die alt- 
christlichen Bildwerke im christlichen Museum des Laterans, Leipzig, 1890, 
pp. i66ff. Marucchi, Guida del Museo Cristiano Lateranense, Roma, 1898, 
pp. 79 ff. -- His writings and their fragments (except the Philosophumena) 
were collected by J. A. Fabricius, S. Hippolyti episc. etmart. opp. Gr. etLat., 
2 vols., Hamburg, 17161718; Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr. (1766), ii; Migne, 
PG. (1857), x; P. A. dc Lagarde , Hippolyti Rom. quae feruntur omnia 
graece, Leipzig and London, 1858. A new edition of the entire works of 
Hippolytus is appearing in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der 
drei ersten Jahrhunderte : Hippolytus Werke, i: Exegetische und homi- 
letische Schriften, herausgegeben von G. N. Bonwetsch und H. Achelis, 
Leipzig, 1897; cf. Catholic University Bulletin, Washington, 1900, vi. 63 
to 76. Collections of Syriac fragments are met with in de Lagarde, 
Analecta Syriaca, Leipzig and London, 1858, pp. 7991, also in Pitra, 
Analecta sacra (1883), iv. 3664 306-331. Armenian fragments, in 
Pitra, \. c., n. 226239; iv. 6471 331337. For Old-Slavonic texts 
cf. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristlichen Literatur, i. 893 897. 

- Brief studies on all the literary labors of Hippolytus, in C. P. Caspar i, 
Ungedruckte Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1875, 

.377409; Lightfoot, 1. c. ( 54, i), ii. 388-405, and Harnack, 1. c., 
i. 605646; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de 1 figlise, 2. e d., Paris 1006 
tome i, c. xvii. 

we have already remarked ( 54, i) the Philosophumena are not men 
tioned, neither on the statue of Hippolytus nor in the catalogue of his 
works by Eusebius and Jerome. Photius calls them * the labyrinth, 
rbv Xaftijpw&ov, and Theodoret of Cyrus 5 calls the work of Hippo 
lytus against Artemon the little labyrinth, <> aptxpbq Xa^pt^oq. It is 

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris ilL> c 6l 3 B . bl Cod I2i 2Q2 

Bibl. Cod. 48. 5 Haeret. fabul. comp. ii. 5. 

54- HIPPOLYTUS. 213 

not improbable that the author called himself his work the labyrinth 
of heresies (cf. x. 5 : roy hapopivftoy ra)v alplffscov ). In the course 
of the work (ix. 8) he refers to the first four books as follows : Iv role, 
<pdoffo<poufi.iyotQ sc. dSfpafftv, i. e. in the description of philosophical 
doctrines. The traditional extension of the title Philosophumena 
to the whole work rests on no intrinsic evidence. In the preface he 
proposes to convince heretics that they have not taken their teach 
ings from the Holy Scriptures or the Tradition but from the wisdom 
of the Hellenes, Ix TTJQ *EXM)va)v ffopiaQ. Hence the comprehensive 
account of Hellenic philosophy to which the first four books are 
devoted. In the first book there is an outline-sketch of Greek philo 
sophy, based, however, on very unreliable sources. From the con 
clusion of the first book it seems certain that the second book dealt 
with the mysteries and all the curious fancies of individuals about 
the stars or spaces*. The contents of the third book must have 
been similar, for at the beginning of the fourth (in the beginning 
mutilated) he is still combating astrology and magic. This fourth 
book is doubtless identical with his work Against the Magi 
fxara judfcwj that he refers to elsewhere (vi. 39). The second part 
of the work opens with the fifth book, the description of the he 
resies, and the proof of their heathen origin. Besides the accounts 
of such earlier heresiologists as Irenaeus he made use of a number 
of works that he took for genuine writings of the heretics , but 
which, in the hypothesis of some modern writers like Salmon and 
Stahelin, were only clever forgeries. The tenth and last book con 
tains a summary recapitulation of the whole work. The work was 
probably composed towards the end of his life. He seems to refer 
(x. 30) to the Chronicle of Hippolytus. In any case the pontificate 
of Callixtus is described (ix. n 13) as a thing of the past. -- A 
smaller work against all heresies 1 , published long before the com 
position of the Philosophumena (see the preface of the latter), is 
usually known since Photius 2 as the Syntagma . The latter writer 
tells us that it contained the refutation of thirty-two heresies, G>JV- 
Taf/jta xara aiplffsatv Aft , beginning with the Dositheans and ending 
with the Noetians. It is now lost, but its contents have been incor 
porated with the writings of such later heresiologists as Pseudo- 
Tertullian (Libellus adversus o nines haereses), Epiphanius (Haereses), 
and Philastrius (Liber de haeresibus). The fragment of a work 
against the Patripassian Noetus, known in the manuscripts as Opdia 
t nyy atpeGw NOYJ~O>J ~wb& is no homily, but the ending of a com 
prehensive anti-heretical work, either the Syntagma or a work other 
wise unknown to us. Of a work against Marcion , known to Eu- 

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 22; Hier., De viris ill., c. 61. 

2 Bibl. Cod. 121. 



sebius ! and St. Jerome 2 , only the title has been preserved ; perhaps 
it is identical with a work mentioned in the statue-catalogue as 
7tp} ttlfaftoi) xdc xoftev TO xaxov. Another lost work, the famous 
Anonymus adversus Artemon, an Ebionite Monarchian, used by 
Eusebius 3 and Theodoret of Cyrus 4 was very probably written by 
Hippolytus 5 . His work in defence of the Gospel and the Apo 
calypse of St. John, mentioned in the statue-catalogue, (r)a orczp TOU 
xara hodvyv efuaJ^e^oD xat dxoxaktyscoQ, has perished; not even 
a fragment of it has reached us. It was probably written against 
the so-called Alogi who wished to banish from the Church all the 
writings of St. John. Some very interesting fragments of a Syriac 
version of another work of Hippolytus on the Apocalypse, known to 
Ebedjesu (f 1318) as Capita adversus Caium (in Greek probably 
xeydAaia xard Fato>j), were published by J. Gwynn (1888 1890). 
The Anti-Montanist Caius had pronounced the Apocalypse to be a 
work of Cerinthus. It taught, he said, a millenarian kingdom of carnal 
joys, and was therefore contradictory of the recognized canonical 
and apostolical writings. Principally Anti - Montanistic also, in all 
probability, was the work entitled on the statue xspl yapKrudrcov 
dxoorohxrj xapddoaiQ, unless we aught to read two titles : mp} %aptff- 
fj-drcov and d~oaToXt.xr] xapdooaic,. There is good reason to believe 
that the same work is the basis of that section of the Apostolic Con 
stitutions w r hich treats of the charismata (viii. I 2). 

Editions of the Philosophumena were published by E. Miller, Oxford, 
1851; L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, Gottingen, 1859; P. Cruice, 
Paris, 1860. The Duncker and Schneidewin edition is reprinted in Migne, 
PG., xvi. 3, among the works of Origen. The first book of the Philosophu 
mena is accessible in a new recension in H. Diets, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 
1879, PP- 55 1 57 6 ; cf. pp. 144156. For the literature of the subject 
c f- 54> i G. Salmon, The Cross-References in the Philosophumena , in 
Hermathena (1885), v - 389402; J. Drdscke, Zur refutatio omnium hae- 
resium des ^Hippolytus , in Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 
263 289. The latter, following a hypothesis of Bunsen, attributes to Hippo 
lytus chapters n and 12 of the Epistle to Diognetus ( 22); they were 
taken, he thinks, from the Philosophumena. Without specifying the work 
whence they were taken, it has been shown by grave intrinsic arguments 
mat they are really from the hand of Hippolytus ; cf. G. N. Bonwetsch, 
Der Autor der Schluftkapitel des Briefes an Diognet (Nachrichten der 
Akad. derWissensch., phUol.-hist.Kl., Gottingen, 1902, fasc. II). H. Stdhelin, 
Die gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts in seiner Hauptschrift gegen die Hare 
tiker (Texte und Untersuchungen, vi. 3), Leipzig, 1890, pp. i 108. Con 
cerning the Syntagma and the fragment of Contra Noetum see R. A. Lip- 
sius , Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht, Leipzig, 
1875, PP- 91190. The fragments of the Capita adversus Caium were 
published m Syriac and in English by J. Gwynn, Hippolytus and his 
Heads against Caius, in Hermathena (1888), vi. 397418; Hippolytus 

1 EMS., Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 Hie) .^ De yiris ^ c 6j 

:; Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 28. * Haeret. fabul. comp. ii c 

5 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 48. 

54- HIPPOLYTUS. 215 

on St. Matth. xxiv. 15 22, in Hermathena (1890), vii. 137 150. There 
is a German version of these fragments in the Berlin edition of Hippo- 
lytus, i. 2, 241 247, where the two fragments on Mt. xxiv. 15 ff. , that 
Gwynn attributed to the commentary of Hippolytus on Matthew, are rightly 
adjudged to the Capita adversus Caium. For the other five fragments on 
passages of the Apocalypse see T/i. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, 
ii. 2, 973 991: Hippolytus gegen Caius (an excellent dissertation). 

of the Philosophumena (x. 32) the author refers to an earlier work 
TTspl rye, TOO TMVTOC, ooGtaQ, doubtless the one entitled on the statue- 
catalogue Tipbc, 9 EXXiqva xai xpbc, IlAdTcova TJ xal Tispl TOO XUVTOQ. 
A fragment of it survives under the title IcoayTioo Ix TOO (xpbc, C EA- 
hjvaq) Xofoo TOO exifsfpa/j./jfivoo XO.TO. IJAaTcovoQ (IlXdTcoyo.) r.zpt TTJQ 
TOO KCWTog acTtaQ. It treats of Hades, the joys of the just and the 
sufferings of the wicked ; in its traditional form it contains hetero 
geneous and spurious elements. Photius was acquainted 1 with a 
work in two books known as loMrqnou its pi TOO XOLVTUQ, written 
against Plato and the theories of the Platonist Alcinous on the soul, 
matter and the resurrection. It undertook also to prove that the 
Jewish people was more ancient than the Hellenes. The fragment 
entitled dirodsixTixy xpbg looda woQ deals with the misfortunes of the 
Jews and traces them to their crime against the Messias. It is of 
doubtful authenticity; none of the ancients mentions any large work 
of Hippolytus against the Jews. - The work De Antichristo* is 
unique among the writings of Hippolytus, being the only one of which 
the complete text has come down to us. It purposes to describe 
fully, according to the Scriptures, the person and the works of Anti 
christ. It is dedicated to a certain Theophilus , a friend of the 
author, and was written about 202. The statue-catalogue mentions a 
work Kp\ #(eo)o xal aapxbc. dvaardffe&z , and St. Jerome 3 was ac 
quainted with a work of Hippolytus De resurrectione. Some frag 
ments of a treatise of Hippolytus To the Empress Julia Mammsea 
on the resurrection are preserved in Syriac; she was the mother of 
the Emperor Alexander Severus (222 235). Perhaps two fragments 
of Hippolytus sx TYJQ rcpb^ ftaadida TWO. ima o kr^ preserved in Theo- 
doret of Cyrus, and a fragment in Anastasius Sinaita sx TOO r.p\ 
xal dp&apffiaQ Aofoo , belong to this work. The ~po- 
Tipbc, 2efir]ptvo.y, mentioned in the statue-catalogue, is other 
wise unknown, and apparently it has utterly perished. The same 
fate has befallen the work De dispensatione (nepl olxovojuiac, the Incar 
nation) mentioned by the Syrian Ebedjesu. 

For the fragment of the Origin of the Universe* cf. Harnack, Gesch. 
der altchristl. Lit., i. 622 f. ; J. Drdseke , Zu Hippolytus Demonstratio 
adversus Iudaeos, in Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. (1886), xii. 456 461. The 

1 Ib. 2 Hie,:, De viris ill., c. 6 1. 3 Ib. 


work On Antichrist*, was edited by Achelis in the Berlin edition of 
Hippolytus, i. 2, 3 47, with the aid (for the first time) of a Jerusalem 
codex of the tenth century and of a Slavonic version translated (1895) into 
German by Bonwetsch. For earlier editions and the manuscript-tradition 
cf. Achelis, Hippolytstudien , pp. 6593. The edition of Achelis is dis 
cussed by P. Wendland , in Hermes (1899), xxxiv. 412427. V. Grone 
made a German version of the De Antichristo, Kempten, 1873 (Bibl. der 
Kirchenvater). Some profound researches on the same book are due to 
Fr. C. Overbeck , Quaestionum Hippolytearum specimen (Dissert, inaug.), 
Jena, 1864. The fragments of the work On the Resurrection are in the 
Berlin edition, i. 2, 251 254. 

quainted 1 with writings of Hippolytus SCQ rlrp k^ar^spov and SJQ TO. JUBTO. 
rrjv sgayfjispoy (probably on Gen. ii iii). St. Jerome describes them 2 
as in k^arjfispov , in Exodum, in Genesim , and elsewhere 3 refers to 
scholia of Hippolytus on the Ark of Noah and on Melchisedech. He 
describes minutely 4 the exposition of Hippolytus on the Blessing of 
Jacob (Gen. xxvii). The principal remnants of his Genesis Commen 
taries are copious scholia on the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix), pre 
served in the Octateuch-Catena of the sophist Procopius of Gaza. 
There are no fragments extant of Hippolytus on Exodus and Levi 
ticus. Leontius of Byzantium quotes a few lines from Hippolytus 
on Numb, xxiii or xxiv, under the title Ix rwv edXo?uov TOO Ba- 
Aadfj.. and Theodoret of Cyrus has saved three small fragments ecQ 
rr t v MOT^ rr/v psfatyy , i. e. on the so-called Canticle of Moses 
(Deut. xxxii). A late Pentateuch-Catena in Arabic contains both 
genuine and spurious scholia to Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 
In 1897 Achelis discovered a Greek fragment From the exposition 
of the Book of Ruth. Theodoret of Cyrus quotes four short pas 
sages * ro\) XofO j TO~J sis ?bv Ehavav xa\ slq TTJV "Away. The statue- 
catalogue mentions a work on the Witch ofEndor, (slq l^/^rr/^j^ov, 
that is called by St. Jerome 5 De Said et Pythonissa. It seems to be 
lost. The fragment of the nocturnal scene at Endor published by 
De Magistris in 1795 under the name of Hippolytus is apparently 
spurious. The work on the Psalms (slq TOLJQ $)aXjjLo6<; or (slg <p)alfj.ooc, 
mentioned in the statue -catalogue, and called De p salmis by Je 
rome 6 was only an opiisculum in paucos Psalmos, as Jerome expressly 
states elsewhere 7 . Theodoret quotes three fragments of Psalm-com 
mentaries: Ps. ii. 7; Ps. xxii. i (Septuagint, with a remarkable passage 
on the sinlessness of Mary) and Ps. xxiii. 7 (Septuagint). Achelis 
proved in 1897 that all other fragments of Hippolytus-commen- 
taries on the Psalms in Greek and Syriac , as found in the printed 
editions, are, with the exception of a few insignificant ones, spurious. 
In the same year Bonwetsch was able to add some Slavonic, Ar- 

Hist. eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris m ^ c> 6l 3 Ep 4g) I9; ^ 2> 

Ep. 36, 16. - De yiris ni c> 6l c Ib 7 i 

54- HIPPOLYTUS. 217 

menian and Syriac fragments to the remnants of the commentary on 
the Canticle of canticles, SIQ TO affjua, mentioned by Eusebius 1 and 
Jerome 2 . Of the commentary on Proverbs 3 only Catenae-fragments 
have come down to us; the commentary on Ecclesiastes * has appa 
rently perished. Theodoret quotes a passage of Hippolytus on Is. ix, I 
as ex TO~J Aoyo j TOO sic, TTJV &P%yv T0 ^ *H0aloo. There is no evidence 
to show that Hippolytus wrote a commentary on Jeremias. He did 
write on Ezechiel, according to Eusebius 5 , slg pipr] TOO IzZexiyA; 
at least one Syriac fragment on Ez. i, 5 IO (the Symbols of 
the Evangelists) must be looked on as genuine. - - The best-known 
and the longest of the exegetical works of Hippolytus is his com 
mentary on the book of Daniel. In 1897 Bonwetsch was able to 
publish the greater part of it in Greek, and the whole, or nearly 
the whole of it, in Sclavonic or Old-Sclavonic, together with a German 
translation. Besides the proto-canonical book of Daniel the com 
mentary treats the story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three 
Children in the fiery furnace ; in the text of Bonwetsch the narrative 
of Bel and the Dragon is lacking. The work is divided into four 
books, was written about 204, after the treatise on Antichrist (iv. 
7, i), and is the oldest of the extant exegetical writings of the 
Christian Church. His commentary on Zacharias was known to St. Je 
rome 6 . The latter was also acquainted with an Hippolytus-com- 
mentary on Matthew 7 ; in certain Oriental Catenae (Coptic , Arabic 
and Ethiopic) there are Hippolytus-scholia to Mt. xxiv. The frag 
ment in Theodoret ix TOO Xofoo TOO elq TTJV TWV raMvTcuv diavofji qv 
must have been taken from a homily on the parable of the talents 
(Mt. xxv. 14 ff); similarly the three fragments in Theodoret on the 
two thieves (S!Q TOUQ 060 tyjardq: Lk. xxiii. 39 ff). An Armenian trans 
lation of the homily in quatriduanum Lazaruni II is found among the 
spurious works of St. John Chrysostom 8 . The two recensions of this 
Armenian text, bearing the name of Hippolytus, are taken from the 
commentary on the Gospel of John and the resurrection ofLazarus. 
From later ecclesiastical writers we learn something about the nature 
of his commentary on the Apocalypse (de apocalypsi)^ particularly 
from a thirteenth-century Arabic commentary of an unknown author 
on that book. - - Hippolytus was the first Christian writer to com 
pose lengthy commentaries on books of the Old Testament. He 
does not follow closely the sequence of the biblical narrative, nor 
dissect the text minutely, it is rather the principal ideas that he 
selects and discusses in a large and free manner. It is well to recall 
the fact that his contemporary Origen is likewise a commentator of 
the Scriptures. But while Origen is intellectually the superior of 

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. *- De viris ill., c. 61. 3 Ib. 4 Ib. 

5 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 5 De viris ill., c. 61 ; Comm. in Zach., praef. 

1 Comm. in Matth., praef. s Migne, PG., Ixii. 775 778. 9 Hier., De viris ill., c. 61 


Hippolytus, and a more profound thinker, the latter possesses a fund 
of exegetic principles more clear and solid than those of Origen. 
Hippolytus is more sober in his exposition and his principles more 
like those of the later Antiochene school. He loves, indeed, to 
allegorize and makes much use of typology. But there is in him 
a certain moderation; he gives evidence of tact and taste, and of a 
mind open to the historical view of scriptural things. Many fragments 
published as remnants of his commentaries have really drifted down 
from his homilies. A sermon, De laude Domini Salvatoris, that he 
preached in the presence of Origen *, has perished. From the ex 
tant fragments we should judge that the work on Easter (r^p} TOO 
xdaya) mentioned by Eusebius 2 and by St. Jerome 3 was a paschal 
sermon. The sermon on the Epiphany , slg ra afta ftsoyavsta, 
extant complete, both in Greek and Syriac, is full of movement and 
strength, but is most probably a spurious discourse on baptism. 

The best collection of the exegetic and homiletic works and fragments 
of Hippolytus is found in the first volume of the Berlin edition. We owe 
to Bonwetsch the edition of the commentary on Daniel and the frag 
ments of the commentary on the Canticle of canticles ; and to Achelis the 
minor exegetical and homiletic texts . The Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac and 
other texts are given in German translation. See Bonwetsch, Studien zu 
den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede, in Texte 
u. Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 2; Achelis, Hippolytstudien (ib., 
Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 4). All the fragments of Daniel known previously 
to 1877 were published and commented by O. Bardenhewer , Des 
hi. Hippolytus von Rorn Kommentar zum Buche Daniel, Freiburg, 1877. 
In 18851886, B. Georgiades published in several fascicules of the 
ExxXY)<jta<mxf) AX^sia (Constantinople) the Greek text of the fourth and 
last book of the commentary on Daniel vii xii. Cf. Bonwetsch, Die 
handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Danielkommentars Hippolyts, in Nach- 
richten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Philol.-hist. 
Klasse (1896), pp. 16 42. For a spurious passage of this commentary 
(iv. 23, 3) on the date of the Savior s birth (Dec. 25.) see Bonwetsch, 
ib. (1895), pp. 515527, and the literature referred to there on p. 515. 
The Greek text of the Slavonic fragment on Apoc. xx. 13 (Berlin ed., 
i. 2, 237 f.) was edited by Fr. Diekamp , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1897), 
Ixxix. 604616, and shown to be spurious. G, N. Bonwetsch, Hippolyts 
K^ommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des grusini- 
schen Textes herausgegeben, in Texte und Untersuch., new series, Leipzig, 
1902, vin. 2. There are in the Codex used by Marr other quite unknown, 
and as yet unedited, Hippolytean texts. E. Violard, Etude sur le commen- 
taire d Hippolyte sur le livre de Daniel (These), Montbeliard, 1903. Batiffol 
holds that Nestorms is the author of the Sermon On the Epiphany , 
Revue Biblique (1900), ix. 341344; G. Chalatiantz, Uber die armenische 
V ersion der Weltchronik des Hippolytus, in Wiener Zeitschr. fur d. Kunde 
. Morgenl. (1903), pp. 182186; G. N. Bonwetsch, Drei Georgisch er- 
haltene Schnften von Hippolytus: Der Segen Jakobs, Der Segen Moses , 
Erzahlung von David und Goliath (Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. i), 
Leipzig, 1904; O. Bardenhewer, Neue exegetische Schriften des hi. Hippo 
lytus, in Biblische Zeitschrift (1905), pp. 117. 

1 flier., De viris ill, c. 61. * Hist, eccl, vi. 22. De viris m>> c . 6l 

54- HIPPOLYTUS. 219 

ing to Eusebius 1 and St. Jerome 2 a work of Hippolytus , entitled 
on the statue-catalogue dTiodet&g ypovcov TOO ndaya contained chrono 
logical disquisitions and a paschal cycle of sixteen years beginning 
with the year 222. The most important relic of this work is visible 
in the paschal tables for the years 222 233 engraved on either 
side of the chair in which the figure of Hippolytus is seated. His 
Chronicle, called %povtxwv (sc. /9/?>l0?), on the statue-catalogue 
and very probably identical with the work mentioned in Philosophu- 
mena (x. 30), is a compendium of chronology from the creation of 
the world to 234. Lengthy fragments of it have survived in Greek; 
it has also reached us in Latin , through three distinct recensions 
of the so-called Liber generationis (mundi). - - From a remark of 
St. Jerome 3 we may conclude that Hippolytus wrote also on ec 
clesiastical law and customs. There is no evidence, however, for 
ascribing to him the authorship of such late collections of apostolic 
ordinances as the Constitute ones per Hippolytum . the Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance and the Canones Hippolyti ( 75, 6 f). Accord 
ing to the statue-catalogue he also wrote Odes, wdai, but nothing- 
more is known of them. 

The fragments of the work on Easter and the Chronicle are indicated 
by Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 625 ff. The different recensions 
of the Liber generationis were edited by Th. Mommscn , in Chronica 
minora saec. iv v vi vii, vol. i (Monum. Germ. hist. Auct. antiquiss., ix.), 
Berlin, 1892, pp. 78 ff. ; by C. Frick , Chronica minora, vol. i, Leipzig, 
1892, pp. iff.; cf. v. ff. Frick maintains that in the Liber generationis 
the Chronicle of Hippolytus is used only as a source, not translated or 
revised ; but his thesis seems untenable. On the Chronicle see H. Gelzer, 
Sextus Julius Africanus, Leipzig, 1885, ii. i, i 23; H. Achelis , Uber 
Hippolyts Oden imd seine Schrift Zur groften Ode ( 54, 5), in Nach- 
richten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen. Philol.-histor. 
Klasse, 1896, pp. 272276. 

7. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. - - Among the writings falsely ascribed 
to Hippolytus two may be mentioned : the Trsp} TYJQ aovreteiaQ TOO 
xoff/wj, compiled from his work on Antichrist ( 54, 4) and from 
writings of St. Ephraem Syrus, but not earlier than the ninth century, 
also a work xara BypatvoQ e HhxoQ TCOV alpSTtxwv xepi fteoAoytag 
xat Gapxwazcoc,, written perhaps in the sixth century and surviving 
only in meagre fragments. 

The work De consummatione mundi is found in the Berlin edition, i. 2, 
289 309. In his Gesammelte Patristische Untersuchungen, Altona, 1889, 
pp. 56 ff. y. Drdseke has undertaken to vindicate for the Pseudo-Dionysius 
the Areopagite the authorship of the work against Beron and Helix, but 
his attempt is unsuccessful. 

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris ill., c. 61. 

3 Ep. 71, 6. 


8. THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. - - The Muratorian Fragment, so-called 
from its discoverer, L. A. Muratori (j i75)> and extant in an eighth cen 
tury codex, is a catalogue of the writings of the New Testament, mutilated 
at the beginning and perhaps at the end. Intrinsic evidence goes to show 
that it was composed in the West (Rome?) about the year 200. The very 
incorrect and difficult Latin text is perhaps a version from the original 
Greek. Lightfoot attempted, but without success, to claim its authorship 
for Hippolytus. Th. Zahn } Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1890), ii. 
If 1 143, and G. Kuhn, Das Muratorische Fragment, Zurich, 1892, contain 
the most recent and exhaustive commentaries on this document. For more 
precise details see the manuals of Introduction to the New Testament, and 
in particular Westcott, On the Canon, Appendix C., 7. ed., 1896, pp. 530 
to 547. -- A new edition, with a proposed restoration of the Latin text, 
was brought out by H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte fur theolog. Vorlesungen 
und Ubungen, Bonn, 1902; A. Harnack, Miscellen, in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, new series, v. 3, Leipzig, 1900, pp. 107 112. 

55. Novatian. 

I . HIS LIFE. - - The schism of Hippolytus was perhaps forgotten 
when Novatian 1 began another that was destined to an almost uni 
versal extension and a life of centuries, especially in the East. In 250 
Novatian was a very distinguished member of the Roman clergy; 
two of the letters addressed by that body to Cyprian of Carthage 2 
after the death of Pope Fabian (Jan. 20., 250) were written by No 
vatian ( 5 1 ? 5)- Both letters represent the praxis of the Roman 
Church relative to the lapsi; the writer and those who commissioned 
him to write are in full harmony with the opinions of Cyprian. No 
vatian abandoned the Roman traditions and betrayed his own prin 
ciples when in 251 he took up at Rome the leadership of a rigorist 
party in opposition to Pope Cornelius (from March 251), and de 
manded with them the perpetual exclusion of all apostates from 
ecclesiastical communion 3 . Concerning his later life and his end 
nothing certain is known. There are grave reasons for doubting the 
statement, first met with Socrates 4 that Novatian died a martyr s 
death in the persecution of Valerian (257 260). 

On the schism of Novatian see v. Hefele, in Kirchenlexikon , 2. ed., 
ix. 542 550; Harnack, in Realencyklopadie fiir protest. Theol. und Kirche, 
2. ed., x. 652 670. For the Cyprianic epistles 30 and 36 see Harnack, in 
Theol. Abhandlungen , C. v. Weizsdcker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 14 
to 20. Forged acts of Novatian s martyrdom were current in the sixth 
century; see Eulogius of Alexandria in Phot., Bibl. Cod. 182 208 280. 

Ammundsen, Novatianus og Novatianismen etc. , Kopenhagen, 1901; 
F. Torm, En Kritisk Fremstilling of Novatianus Liv og Forfatter- 
virksomhed etc., Kopenhagen, 1901; 7. O. Anderson, Novatian, Kopen 
hagen, 1901. 

1 The Latin sources usually speak of him as Novatianus; the Greeks write mostly 

yro?, Naudros, Naftdrog. 

- Ep. 30 and 36, ed. Hartel. 3 Socrates, Hist, eccl., iv. 28. 4 Ib. 

55- NOVATIAN. 221 

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. The two letters to Cyprian 
( 55> are quite sufficient to prove the superior ability of Novatian 
as a rhetorician and a philosopher. It is admitted also by his earliest 
adversaries, Pope Cornelius l and Cyprian 2 . Jerome is the first to 
inform us about his writings : Scripsit autem de pascha, de sabbato, 
de circumcisione , de sacerdote, de oratione, de cibis iudaicis, de in- 
stantia, de Attalo multaque alia et de trinitate grande volumen, quasi 
eTCLTOfr/jV operis Tertulliani faciens, quod plerique nescientes Cypriani 
existimant 3 . The Epistolae Novatiani that Jerome mentions else 
where 4 are perhaps the letters sent by him in 251 to many bishops 
in order to gain them over to his cause 5 . Only two of the works 
mentioned by St. Jerome have reached us, De Trinitate and De 
cibis iudaicis, though the manuscripts attribute them to Tertullian 
instead of Novatian. A number of works formerly current under 
the name of Cyprian have recently been claimed for Novatian. Among 
them the De spectaculis and De bono pudicitiae ( 51, 6 d e) are 
rightly adjudged to him; not so, however, Quod idola dii non sint 
(51, 4) and the sermons De laude martyrii and Adversus ludaeos 
( 51, 6 a b). Weyman holds that he is the author of the Trac- 
tatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum, disovered in 1900. 

The De Trinitate and De cibis Iudaicis were first printed in the edition 
of Tertullian at Paris in 1545 by M. Mesnartius (J. Gangneius). They 
were also printed , apart from the works of Tertullian, by E. Welchman, 
Oxford, 1724, and J. Jackson, London, 1728. The latter edition is re 
produced in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1767, iii. 285 323 (cf. xvi 
to xix), and in Migne, PL., iii. 86 1 970. 

3. DE TRINITATE. DE CIBIS JUDAICIS. - - In contents and form 
the De Trinitate is a work of superior merit. In close adherence to 
St. Irenaeus of Lyons the author treats of God the Omnipotent Father 
(cc. i 8), at greater length of the Son, of His divinity, His humanity, 
and His personal distinction from the Father (cc. 9 28), and very briefly 
concerning the Holy Ghost (c. 29). Though it was soon afterwards 
held to be a work either of Tertullian or of Cyprian G , it certainly came 
from the hand of Novatian 7 , nor is it an extract from the Adversus 
Praxcain of Tertullian 8 . It was probably composed before the out 
break of his schism and even before the persecution of Decius. The 
De Cibis Iudaicis is a work addressed to the Novatian community 
in Rome, for the purpose of showing how certain foods were de 
clared unclean by the Mosaic law in order to withdraw the Jews 
from the sins and vices symbolized by those animals. The Christian, 
however, apart from the precept of temperance, is bound only to 

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 43. 2 Ep. 55, 16 24. 

8 Hier., De viris ill., c. 70; cf. Ep. 36, I. 4 Ep. 10, 3. 

5 Socr., Hist, eccl., iv. 28. 6 Rufin., De adult, libr. Orig. 

7 Hier., Contra Ruf., ii. 19. 8 Hier., De viris ill., c. 70. 


avoid the use of meats sacrificed to idols. Occasional reminiscences 
of Seneca are worthy of note. We learn from the writer (c. i) who, 
probably because of some persecution by Gallus and Volusianus or 
by Valerianus, dwelt far from (Rome), that in two former letters 
he had expressed his opinions on the true circumcision and the true 
sabbath *. 

For the DC Trinitate see H. Hagemann, Die Romische Kirche und ihr 
Einflufi auf Disziplin und Dogma, Freiburg, 1864, pp. 371 411 (according 
to Hagemann the work is not from the pen of Novatian) ; J. Quarry, in 
Hermathena (1897), no. 23, pp. 36 70, thinks that it is a version from 
the Greek and that the original was written by Hippolytus; G. Landgraf 
and C. Weyman , in Archiv f. latein. Lexikogr. u. Gramm. (1898 1900), 
xi. 221 249, have given us an excellent edition of De cibis ludaids. 
Th, M. Wehofer, Sprachliche Eigentiimlichkeiten des klassischen Juristen- 
lateins in Novatians Briefen, in Wiener Studien (1901), xxiii. 269 275. 

of Origen twenty homilies have reached us in an Orleans manuscript 
of the tenth and in another of St. Omer belonging to the twelfth 
century. Their subject-matter, with the exception of the last (on 
the miracle of Pentecost, Acts ii), is taken from the Old-Testament. 
Batiffol, who discovered and edited them, accepted the evidence of 
the manuscripts; according to him the homilies were really com 
posed or delivered by Origen , and Victorinus of Pettau ( 58, i), 
translated them into Latin, and perhaps revised them. When con 
fronted with the vigorous refutation in the seventeenth homily of 
Origen s peculiar denial of the resurrection of the body, Batiffol re 
plied that the translator had simply interpolated the text of the 
original, using for that purpose the De resurrectione carnis of Ter- 
tullian. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is original and not 
a version. A close similarity of style and diction suggests Novatian; 
on the other hand the Trinitarian doctrine of these homilies (ed. 
Batiffol, 33 67 157) seems to indicate a post-Nicene composition. 
Dom Morin suggests as author the Luciferian Gregory of Eliberis 
( 87, 4)- 

Tractatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum detexit et cdidit P. Batiffol 
sociatis curis A. Wilmart , Paris, 1900; C. Weyman, in Archiv fur latein. 
Lexikogr. u. Gramm. (18981900), xi. 467?. 545576; G. Morin, in 
Revue d histoire et de litterature relig. (1900), v. 145161; Batiffol, in 
Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique (1900), pp. 190197 (against Morin) ; 
283297 (against Weyman); Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii. 
534544; E- C.Butler, The New Tractatus Origenis, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies (1901), ii. 113 121 254 262 (non liquet, written by an anonymous 
hand in the fifth or the sixth century); J. Haussleiter , Novatians Predigt 
iiber die Kundschafter (n. 13) in direkter Uberlieferung und in einer Be- 
arbeitung des Casanus von Aries, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift (1902), xiii. 
1 19 143; P- Batiffol, in Civilta Cattolica, series XVIII (1902), v. 589, is 

Cf. the titles De sabbato and De circumcisione, in Hicr., De viris ill., c. 70. 


now of opinion that it was written by a follower of Novatian towards the 
end of the persecutions (ca. 300 313). In the Revue Benedictine (1902), 
xix, 226 245, G. Morin gives up Gregory of Eliberis, but only to look 
for a still later author, somewhere in the fifth century. H. Jordan, Die 
Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians, Greifswald, 1902; 
P. Batiffol, in Revue Biblique (1903), xii. 81 93; H. Jordan, Melito und 
Novitian, in Archiv fur latein. Lexikogr. und Grammatik (1902), xii. 59 
to 68; y. Baer , De operibus Fastidii etc. (cf. 94, 16); E. C. Butler, 
An Hippolytus-Fragment and a Word on the Tractatus Origenis, in Zeit- 
schrift fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1903), iv. 79 87. The so-called 
Tractatus Origenis, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1905), vi. 587 599. 

56. Papal Letters. 

1. ST. CALLIXTUS (21 7 222). Out of the references in the De 
pudicitia of Tertullian ( 50, 5) Rolffs undertook, with doubtful 
success, to restore the text of the penitential or indulgence edict in 
which Pope Callixtus promised forgiveness and reconciliation to 
adulterers and fornicators, conditionally on the performance of public 
penance. It is uncertain whether and to what extent the other 
decrees of this pope in matters of discipline and dogma ( 54> 
were reduced to writing. 

E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1893), xi. 3; P. Batiffol, Le 
decret de Calliste, in Etudes d hist. et de theol. positive, Paris, 1902, 
pp. 69 no. 

2. ST. PONTIANUS (230235). -- A Roman synod of 231 or 232 con 
firmed the decrees of the two Alexandrine synods condemnatory of Origen 
(Hier.j Ep. 33, 4). It is probable that Pope Pontianus communicated the 
action of the Roman synod in a letter to Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria. 

3. ST. FABIANUS (236 250). - - This pope wrote a letter (litteris) 
in approval of the action of a great Numidian synod concerning 
Privatus, bishop of Lambesa in Numidia 1 . 

For letters of the Roman clergy during the vacancy of the see from 
Jan. 250 to March 251 cf. 51, 5c; 55, i. 

4. ST. CORNELIUS (251 253). -- Amidst the letters of St. Cy 
prian 2 are two from Cornelius addressed to the former concerning the 
schism of Novatian. At least five letters of Cornelius to Cyprian are 
lost 3 . Three letters to Fabius, bishop of Antioch 4 , and one to 
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria 5 , dealt with the same schism, but 
were certainly written in Greek. Eusebius 6 has saved for us some 
excerpts from the third letter to Fabius. 

P. Constant, Epist. Rom. Pont., Paris, 1721, i. 125 206; Ronth, 
Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed. , iii. n 89. For genuine and spurious material 

1 Cypr,, Ep. 59, 10. 2 Ep. 49 50. 

3 Cypr., Ep. 45, i; 48, i; 50; 59, i 2. 

4 us., Hist. eccl. , vi. 43, 3 4; incorrectly given as four letters, in Hier., De 
viris ill., c. 66. 

5 Ens., 1. c., vi. 46, 3. 6 Ib , vi. 43, 522. 


cf. Migne, PL., iii. 675 848; G. Mercati, D alcuni miovi sussidii per la 
critica del testo di S. Cipriano, Rome, 1899, pp. 72 86: Le lettere di 
S. Cornelio Papa and (pp. 84 86) a new edition of the same according 
to important readings of the Verona Codex. It has been mentioned above 
( 51, 6) that L. Nelke holds Cornelius to be the author of Ad Novatianum. 

5. ST. LUCIUS i. (253 254). -- St. Cyprian mentions (Ep. 68, 5) one 
or more letters of St. Lucius concerning the treatment of those who had 
apostatized in the persecutions. 

6. ST. STEPHEN I. (254 257). Stephen wrote to the churches 
in Syria and Arabia 1 , also in consequence of the controversy on 
heretical baptism to the bishop of Asia Minor 2 , and to Cyprian 3 . 
It has been conjectured from passages in Cyprian 4 and Firmilian of 
Caesarea 5 that he wrote other letters. We possess only his famous 
decision on the baptism of heretics in the letter addressed to Cyprian 6 
(cf. Si, i). 

Constant, 1. c. , i. 209 256; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 

7. ST. SIXTHS ii. (257258). It is very probable that Sixtus also wrote 
letters on the question of heretical baptism. Concerning the thesis of 
Harnack that Sixtus is the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum 
see 51, 6 f. In the fourth century a collection of moral apophthegms, 
translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileja, were believed by many to 
be the work of Pope Sixtus. They are a later adoptation by some Chris 
tian of a work of Sextus the Pythagorean (not so Hier., Ep. 33, 3). For 
recent editions of Rufinus version see J. Gildemeister , Sexti sententiarum 
recensiones, Bonn, 1873; A. Elter, Gnomica, Leipzig, 1892, i. For the 
other works attributed to Sixtus see Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen 
(1895), xm - I > 64 f- 

8. ST. DIONYSIUS (259268). On the subjects of Sabellianism 
and Subordinationism (Arianism) pope Dionysius addressed two letters 
to Dionysius of Alexandria 7 (cf. 40, 3). St. Athanasius has pre 
served 8 a precious fragment of the first letter, or more properly 
dogmatic Encyclical. The pope also wrote a letter of consolation to 
the church of Caesarea in Cappadocia 9 . 

Constant, 1. c., i. 269292; Routh, 1. c., iii. 369-403. Genuine, and 
spurious material in Migne, PL., v. 99136. For the doctrinal letters to 
Dionysius of Alexandria see H. Hagemann , Die Romische Kirche Frei 
burg, 1864, pp. 432453- 

9. ST. FELIX i. (269274). The letter of St. Felix to Maximus, bishop 
Alexandria, and his clergy, a passage of which was read at the council 

of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, SS. Concil. Coll., iv. 1188) was very probably 
the work of an Apollinarist forger. 

1 Dion. Alex., in Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 5, 2. 

Ib., vii. 5, 4; Cypr., Ep. 75, 25. s Cy pr., Ep. 74 75. 

Ep. 67, 5; 68. * Ib-; 75; 25 e ^ ^ ^ 

r Athan., Ep. de sent. Dionys., c. 13. 

8 Ep. de deer. Nyc. syn., c. 26. 9 Basil. Magn., Ep. 70. 

57- COMMODIAN. 225 

Constant, 1. c., i. 291 298, defends this fragment as genuine; it is 
pronounced spurious by Caspari , Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesch. des 
Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1879, PP- IIT 12 3- See Harnack, Gesch. der 
altchristl. Lit., i. 659 f. 

10. ST. MILTIADES (311 314). Either Miltiades, or the Roman 
synod of Oct. 313, wrote a letter to Constantine concerning the 
Donatist schism; it is referred to in a letter of the Emperor 1 . 


57. Commodian. 

1. His LIFE. - - Only his own works make this writer known to 
us ; even the account of him in Gennadius 2 is taken from his writings. 
He was brought up as a heathen, but embraced the Christian faith 
after reading the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament; he had 
probably been a Jewish proselyte at an earlier date. The eighth-cen 
tury codex of his Carmen apologeticum calls him sanctus episcopus. 
His language shows that he had lived in the Latin West, though he 
was probably born at Gaza in Palestine 3 . His extant works, it is 
conjectured, were written about 250 or a little later. 

G. Boissier , Commodien, Paris, 1886; Freppel, Commodien, Arnobe, 
Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. i 27. His two works were edited by E. Ludwig, 
Leipzig, 1877 1878, and B. Dombart (1887), Vienna, (Corpus script, 
eccles. Lat. , xv). The preparatory labors of Dombart are found in the 
following reviews: Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1879), xxn - 374 3^9; 
Blatter fiir das bayer. Gymn.- und Realschulwesen (1880), xvi. 341 351; 
Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Kl. der k. Akad. der Wissenschaft zu Wien 
(1880), xcvi. 447 473; (1884), cvii. 713 802. H. Brewer, in Zeitschr. fiir 
kath. Theol. (1899), xxm - 759 763, defended a singular opinion con 
cerning the date of the writings of Commodian (about 458 to 466))); 
G. S. Ramundo , in Archivio della Soc. Romana di Storia Patria (1901), 
xxiv. 373 -391, and in Scritti vari di nlologia a Ernesto Monaci, Rome, 
1902, pp. 215 229 (about the time of Julian the Apostate). 

2. INSTRUCTIONES. - The Instructiones per litter as versuum 
primas are a collection in two books of eighty acrostic poems, un 
equal in length. The first book is written againsfc Jews and heathens, 
scoffs at the heathen mythologies, reprehends the depraved manners 
of the heathens and the stubbornness of the Jews, and closes with 
a threatening reference to the Last Judgment 4 . The second book 
is addressed to the Christians, with the intention of urging all, cate 
chumens and faithful, lay and cleric, poor and rich, to the fulfilling 
of their duties and the avoidance of sin. The text has come down 
in a very corrupt condition, the diction is extremely popular, and 

1 Rouih, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed., iv. 297. 2 De viris ill., c. 15. 

3 Gascus, Instr., ii. 39. 

4 In spite of the manuscripts Acrostics 42 45 belong not to the second, but to 
the first book. 



the metre, a very peculiar hexameter, governed alternately by quan 
tity and by accent. All the poems are acrostic (i. 28, is both 
acrostic and telestic), i. e. the initial letters of the successive verses 
form words expressive of the theme and the title of the poem. The 
result of so fantastic a plan was necessarily a stiff and cramped 
diction, almost wooden in its rigidity. His biblical quotations are 
taken from St. Cyprian s Testimonia adversus Judaeos. He seems 
also to have been acquainted with Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and 
the Shepherd of Hermas. 

Editio princeps, by N. Rigaltius, Toul, 1649 (Migne, PL., v). For the 
editions of Ludwig and Dombart see 57, i. Fr. Hanssen , De arte 
metrica Commodiani, in Dissert, philol. Argentorat. sel. (1881), v. 190; 
W. Merer, Der Versbau Commodians, in Denkschriften der k. bayer. Akad. 
der Wissensch., Abhandlungen der philos.-philol. Kl. (1885), xvii. 2, 288 
to 307. 

3. CARMEN APOLOGETICUM. - - Quite similar in its scope to the 
first book of Instructiones is the poem that its original editor entitled 
Carmen apologeticum. It contains 1060 verses, several of which are 
either fragmentary or illegible, and it is known to us through a 
single eighth-century manuscript. A prolix introduction (vv. I 88) 
is followed by instructions on the nature of God, the beginnings of 
redemption (89 276), the person of the Savior and the significance 
of the names of Father and Son (277 578). Then come stern warn 
ings to the heathens (579 616) and to the Jews (617 790). In 
its closing lines the poem rises to its highest perfection in a formal 
description of the Last Judgment (791 1060). The author is not 
mentioned in the codex, but intrinsic evidence points to the author 
of the Instructiones. The mention of the seventh persecution and of 
the passage of the Danube by the Goths (vv. 808 ff.) suggests the 
fifth decade of the third century. The metre is that of the Instruc 
tiones, though the diction, freed from the bonds of the acrostic, 
is more fluent and lively. 

The editio princeps is that of J. B. Pitra , Spicil. Solesm. (1852), i. ; 
cf. (1858), iv. 222 224. It was also edited by J. ff. Ronsch, in Zeitschr. 
fur die hist. Theol. (1872), xlii. 163 302. For the editions of Ludwig and 
Dombart see 57, i. A. Ebert, Commodians Carmen apol., in Abhand 
lungen der k. sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. phil.-hist. Kl. (1870), v. 387 
to 420; C. Leimbach , Uber Commodians Carmen apol. adv. Gentes et 
Iudaeos (Progr.), Schmalkalden , 1871; B. Aube, L Eglise et 1 Etat dans 
la seconde moitie du IIP siecle [249284], Paris, 1885, pp. 517544. 

4. RETROSPECT. - - There is little to attract us in the first Christian 
poet, from the standpoint of literary form. The verse clings prosaical 
ly to the earth; only occasionally, especially in the eschatological 
parts, does it manifest a certain afflatus and develop a degree of 
majesty. The contents of his writings betrays a practical and sagacious 
ecclesiastic, filled with benevolent zeal, but endowed with slight 


theological culture. A very gross form of Chiliasm is exhibited in both 
works 1 . His doctrine on God, on the Trinity, or rather his theo- 
dicea, scarcely outlined in the Instructiones, appears in the Carmen 
apologeticum (vv. 89 ff. 277 ff. 771 ff;) as downright Monarchianism 
or Patripassianism. 

For the teaching of Commodian on the. Trinity see J. L. Jacobi, in 
Zeitschr. fur christl. Wissensch. und christl.. Leben (1853), iv. 203 209. 
His eschatology is discussed by L. Atzbcrger, Gesch. der christl. Eschato- 
logie, Freiburg, 1896, pp. 555566. 

58. Victorinus of Pettau and Reticius of Autun. 

I . VICTORINUS OF PETTAU. - - Victorinus, the earliest exegete of 
the Latin Church, was bishop of Petabio or Petavio (Pettau in Steier- 
mark) in the closing years of the third century, and died a martyr 
in : the persecution of Diocletian 2 . The statement of Cassiodorus 3 
that Victorinus was a rhetorician before he became a bishop, is the 
result of his confounding our writer with C. Marius Victorinus Afer, 
a .Roman rhetorician of the fourth century. Victorinus of Pettau 
was probably a Greek by birth 4 , though, so far as is known, he 
wrote only in Latin. He left commentaries on the first three books 
of-" the Pentateuch, on Ecclesiastes and the Canticle of canticles, 
Isaias, Ezechiel and Habacuc, St. Matthew and the Apocalypse, also 
&~WQj& J 3ldversum omnes haereses*. These works do not exhibit 
either a cultivated Latin style or extensive erudition 6 . In his exegesis 
Victorinus is a faithful disciple of Origen, though he gives proof of 
independence and good judgment 7 . Of his exegetical labors only 
the commentary on the Apocalypse is known to us; as early as 
the sixteenth century it was edited in two recensions. Though the 
shorter recension is the basis of the larger one, it is not itself the 
original text, but only a revision of the same by St. Jerome. The con 
clusion of this commentary, repudiated by Jerome because of its 
decidedly Chiliastic doctrine, was re-discovered in 1895 by Haussleiter. 
Gave discovered in 1688 a Tractatus Victor ini de fabrica mundi. It 
may:be, the work of our Victorinus, but if so it belongs neither to 
the commentary on Genesis nor to that on the Apocalypse. The 
work -Adversum omnes haereses has been identified , but wrongly, 
with fosyL&hcllus adversus omnes haereses printed with the works 
of Tertullian ( 50, 8). 

y. de Launoy , De Victorino episc. et mart, diss., Paris, 1653; 2: ed. 
1664. Complete editions: A. Rivinus , Gotha, 1652; Gallandi, Bibl. vet. 
Patr. (1768), iv;; -49 64; Mignc, PL V v. 281 344. The Jonger recension 

1 Gctinad., De viris ill., c. 15. 2 Hier., De viris ill. ," .- 74-. - 

3 Instit., i. 5 7. 4 Hier., 1. c. 

5 Hier:, 1. c. ; Transl. horn. Orig. in Luc., praef. 

d Hier., Ep. 58, 10; 70, 5. 7 Ib., 61, 2; 84, 7. 



of the commentary on the Apocalypse is in Gallandi and Migne, also in 
the Bibliotheca Casinensis (1894), v. i, Floril. 121; the shorter one 
e. g. in Max. Bibl. vet. Patr., Lyons, 1677, iii. 414421. On the Chili- 
astic conclusion see J. Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1895), xvi. 193 
to 199, and Zeitschr. fur kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben (1886), vii. 
2 3 9 257; cf. Haussleiter, Der Aufbau der altchristl. Liter., Berlin, 1898, 
pp ^ 37 ; Beitrage zur Wiirdigung der Offenbarung des Johannes und 
ihres altesten lateinischen Auslegers Victorinus von Pettau, Greifswald, 1900. 
For the De fabrica mundi with copious annotationes cf. Routh , Reliquiae 
sacrae, 2. ed., iii. 451 483. In general see Preuschen, in Harnack, Gesch. 
d. altchristl. Liter., i. 731 735. The De monogram-mate edited by G. Morin, 
in Revue Benedictine (1903), xx. 225 226, is by some connected with 
St. Jerome s revision of the commentary on the Apocalypse. G. Mercati 
published from an Ambrosian codex, and annotated, some fragments of a 
Latin commentary on Mt. xxiv., by an anonymous Chiliast, very probably 
Victorinus of Pettau. G. Mercati, Varia sacra (Studi e Testi n), Rome, 
1903, pp. 3 49; C. H. Turner, An Exegetical Fragment of the Third 
Century, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1904), v. 218; A. Souter , The 
authorship of the Mercati-Turner Anecdoton, in Journal of Theol. Studies 
(1904), v. 608 621; Dom G. Morin, Notes sur Victorin du Pettau, in 
Journal of Theol. Studies (1906), vii. 456 459. 

2. RETICIUS OF AUTUN. - - Reticius, in the reign of Constantine 
bishop of Augustodunum (Autun), the city of the Aedui, was highly 
esteemed by all his contemporaries in Gaul. He wrote a commentary 
on the Canticle of canticles and a large work against Novatian 1 . While 
the diction of the commentary was choice and pleasing, it contained 
many singular and foolish opinions 2 . It is perhaps in the work 
against Novatian that St. Augustine found the remark of Reticius 
on baptism frequently cited by him 3 . 

Histoire litteraire de la France, Paris, 1733, i. 2, 59 63. Acta SS. Jul., 
Venice, 1748, iv. 587 589; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Liter., i. 751 f. 


59. The Acts of the Martyrs. 

i. PRELIMINARY REMARK. - - Narratives of martyrdom have at 
all times specially fascinated the hearts of the faithful. It was custo 
mary, at a very early date, to celebrate with a liturgical service the 
anniversary of the martyr s death 4 ; it was also customary on such 
occasions to read to the Christian community a narrative of the 
events that culminated in so glorious a sacrifice 5 . In the first 
quarter of the fourth century Eusebius made a collection of ancient 
Acts of the martyrs now known to us only by quotations 6 . Those 
accounts of the earliest Christian martyrdoms which have reached us 

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 82. 2 flier., Ep. 37; cf. Ep. 5, 2. 

Aug., Contra lulian, i. 3, 7 ; Opus imperfectum contra lulianum, i. 55. 

Mart. S. Polyc., c. 18, 3. 5 Acta SS. Perp. et Felic., cc. i 21. 

6 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 47; v., prooem., 2, al. 


may be divided into three groups. Some are official documents, 
records (acta, gesta) made by the notaries of the civil court, but 
handed down in a form calculated to edify the Christian reader. 
The second group is made up of the narratives of those who saw 
and heard the details of the martyr s death (passiones). They are 
lacking in official authenticity, but merit the closest attention of the 
historian. The third group is composed of accounts of martyrdom, 
put together at a later period, some of them enlarging partly and 
partly ornamenting the original story, while others are purely literary 
figments. We mention here only such very ancient Acta as have 
always been held to be genuine and trustworthy. 

The collections of Lives of saints and Acts of martyrs published by 
B.Mombritius (about 1476 at Milan), by AL Lipomanus (1551 1560 at Venice 
and Rome), and by L. Surius (Cologne, 1570 1575, and often since) were 
all surpassed by the Acta Sanctorum of the Jesuit J, Bolland (f 1665), 
and his colleagues known as the Bollandists. This noble enterprise has 
reached its sixtieth volume, and is not yet complete. Since 1882 it is sup 
plemented by a periodical publication, the Analecta Bollandiana. Cf. Biblio- 
theca hagiographica graeca seu elenchus vitarum sanctorum graece typis 
impressarum, edd. Hagiographi Bollandiani , Brussels, 1895. Bibliotheca 
hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis, edd. Socii Bollandiani, Brus 
sels, 1898 ff. (now complete in two volumes and a supplement 1898 1899, 
1900 1901). A compendious translation, and a continuation Les Petits 
Bollandistes which is complete (seventeen volumes, with Appendix in three 
volumes) has been published, Paris, 1888. A critical sifting of the Acts of 
the martyrs of the first four centuries was undertaken by the Benedictine 
Th. Ruinart: Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta, Paris, 1689 ; 2. ed., 
Amsterdam, 1713; often reprinted, e. g. Ratisbon, 1859. ~~ E. Le Blant, 
Les Actes des martyrs, in Memoires de 1 Inst. Nat. de France, Acad. des 
inscriptions et belles-lettres (1883), xxx. 2, 57 347. K. J. Neumann, Der 
romische Staat und die allgmeine Kirche bis auf Diokletian, Leipzig,, 1890, 
i. 274 331 : Zur Kritik der Acta Sanctorum. Preuschen } in Harnack, 
Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur, i. 807 834. H. Achelis, Die Martyro- 
logien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert (Abhandlungen der kgl. Gesellsch. 
der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Berlin, 1900). O. v. Gebhardt, Acta marty 
rum selecta. Ausgewahlte Martyrerakten und andere Urkunden aus der 
Verfolgungszeit der christlichen Kirche, Berlin, 1902. R. Knopf, Aus 
gewahlte Martyrerakten, Tiibingen and Leipzig, 1901 (Sammlung ausgewahlter 
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften , ed. by Kruger, 
series ii. 2). H. Leclerq, Les martyrs. Recueil des pieces authentiques sur 
les martyrs depuis Forigine du Christianisme jusqu au xx e siecle, Paris, 1902 
to 1904. i iii. B. Alasia, Atti autentici di alcuni santi martiri scelti e 
tradotti, 2 voll., Torino, 1863. 

2. MARTYRIUM S. POLYCARPI. --The oldest Acts that we possess 
are found in the encyclical letter of the Church of Smyrna concerning 
the martyrdom, at the age of eighty-six, of its bishop Polycarp. He 
suffered with other Christians of Smyrna, February 23., 155. The 
narrative is so straightforward, lively and emotional that there can 
be no suspicion of forgery. Eusebius incorporated the greater part 
of it (cc. 8 19, i) in his Church History (iv. 15). It was composed 



before the first anniversary of the death of Polycarp (c. 18, 3). In 
the manuscripts the original text (cc. 1 20) has been enriched with 
additions (cc. 21 22) by later hands. An ancient Latin version has 
also reached us, but is paraphrastic and carelessly executed. 

y. Ussher was the first to publish the Greek text, London, 1647. It is 
best edited in the recent editions of the Letter to the Philippians of St. Poly- 
carp by Zahn , Leipzig, 1876; Funk y Tubingen, 1878 1887 1902 (in the 
last edition a Jerusalem Codex S. Sepulchri was first used) ; Lightfoot, 
London, 1885 1889 (cf. 10, 2), and v. Gebhardt, Acta etc. There is 
also in Zahri s edition a new recension of the ancient Latin version; cf. 
A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878, pp. 75 90. For the 
letter itself see E. Egli, Altchristliche Studien, Zurich, 1887, pp. 61 79. 

Marcus Aurelius (161 180), very probably while Lucius Verus was 
still his colleague (161 169), Carpus, bishop ofThyatira, and Papylus, 
deacon of Thyatira (?), were condemned to the stake, after a steadfast 
confession of their faith. A Christian woman, Agathonice, who stood 
by, threw herself voluntarily into the flames. The narrative is very 
simple and touching, and was evidently composed by an eye-witness. 
It is also mentioned by Eusebius 1 . A longer recension that goes 
back to Simeon Metaphrastes in the tenth century wrongly places 
the martyrdom in the time of Decius. 

The longer recension is in Migne, PG., cxv. 105 126. The original 
text was first published by B. Aube from a twelfth-century (?) manuscript, 
in Revue archeologique , new series (1881), xlii. 348 360, and again in 
1 Eglise et 1 Etat dans la seconde moitie du III 6 siecle, Paris, 1885, pp. 499 
to 506. A new edition of the same manuscript with commentary by Harnack 
is to be found in Texte und Untersuchungen (1888), hi. 3 4 433 466; 
and another edition was made by v. Gebhardt, Acta etc. 

4. ACTA SS. JUSTINI ET SOCIORUM. Between 163 and 167 the 
Apologist Justin and six other Christians were cast into prison at 
Rome, because of their Christian faith, by order of Junius Rusticus, 
prefect of the City; they were scourged and beheaded. Apart from 
the beginning and the end, these brief acts, apparently unknown to 
Eusebius, are a copy of the official records. 

The Greek text was first published in the Acta Sanctorum Jim., Ant 
werp, 1695, Venice, 1741, i. 2021; later among the works of Justin, 
in Migne, PG., vi. 1565 1572; cf. 1795 f., and better in v. Otto, Corpus 
apol. Christ., Jena, 1879, "i. 3, 266279; <* xlvi 1; also in 7*. Gebhardt, 
Acta etc. P. Franchi de Cavalier i , Note agiografiche. I: Gli Atti del 
martirio di S. Ariadne. II: Gli Atti di S. Giustino, in Studi e Testi, Rome, 
1902, viii. 

the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177178) the Christian 

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 48. 


community of Lyons was tried by a severe persecution 1 . When its 
fury had been spent, the Christians of Lyons and Vienne sent to the 
brethren in Asia Minor a minute and picturesque narrative of the 
terrible events they had survived. Lengthy fragments, all too brief 
to satisfy our curiosity, have been saved for us in the Church History 
of Eusebius (v. I 4). 

These fragments may also be found in Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed., 
Oxford, 1846, i. 293 371, and in v. Gebhardt , Acta etc. -- O. HirscJi- 
feld, Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Lugdunum vor Konstantin, in 
Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1895, 

6. ACTA MARTYRUM SCILITANORUM. - The first fruits of the 
martyrs of Africa were twelve men and women of Scili in Numidia. 
They appeared before the proconsul, P. Vigellius Saturninus, at Carthage 
July 17., 1 80, and were condemned as Christians to die by de 
capitation. Their Acts have reached us in three Latin and one Greek 
recension. The shortest of the Latin texts offers the substance of the 
court-records of the trial, while the other two give evidence of later 
changes and additions. The Greek text is a version of the Latin. 

For the three Latin recensions cf. Ruinart, 1. c. ( 59, i), 2. ed., pp. 84 
to 89, the shortest and oldest one is given there in fragmentary condition. 
H. Usener first published the Greek text, in Index Schol. Bonn, per menses 
aest. a. 1881. All previously (to 1881) known texts are printed by B. Aube, 
Etude sur im nouveati texte des Actes des martyrs Scillitains, Paris, 1881. 
The shortest and oldest Latin text is found complete, in Analecta Bolland. 
(1889), viii. 5 8; cf. (1897), xvi. 64 f. A complete collection of all re 
lative texts is given by J. A. Robinson, in Texts and Studies (1891), i. 2, 
104 121, also in v. Gebhardt, Acta etc. Cf. Neumann, 1. c. (see 59, i), 
i. 71 74 284 286; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 

7. ACTA S. APOLLONH. Eusebius relates in his Church History 
(v. 21) that during the reign of Commodus (180 192) a highly 
cultured and esteemed Christian of Rome, named Apollonius, was 
beheaded after an eloquent defence of his faith before the praefectus 
praetor io Perennis (180 185) and the Roman Senate. It was easy 
to recognize mere conjecture in the additional details given by 
St. Jerome 2 . Very doubtful, in particular, seemed the statement that 
Apollonius had read before the Senate an excellent work (insigne 
volumen) in defence of his faith. It was therefore a matter of general 
surprise when Conybeare discovered (1893) an Armenian text of the 
Martyrdom of S. Apollonius the Ascetic . Shortly after the Bol- 
landists made known a Greek text of the Martyrdom of the holy 
and celebrated apostle Apollos (sic). Both texts contain the Acts 
of Apollonius as known to Eusebius, though more or less disfigured 
by later changes and additions. Given the actual state of the Acts, 

1 Ib., v., prooem., i. ~ De viris ill., c. 42 53; Ep. 70, 4. 


it is not easy to unravel with clearness the course of the trial, nor to 
discern the role which fell to the Senate. The d.xo koft.a referred to 
by Eusebius must have been made up of the questions of the judge 
Perennis and the replies of Apollonius. The martyr outlines broadly 
the teachings of Christian faith and morality. His exposition is re 
markable for its firmness and dignity as well as for the candor of 
mind and the tranquillity of spirit that it reveals. 

The Armenian Martyrium is found in the Armenian collection of 
the Acts of the Martyrs published at Venice in 1874 by the Mechitarists 
(i. 138 143). F. C. Conybeare published an English version in The Guar 
dian, June 1 8., 1893, and again in his Apology and Acts of Apollonius 
and other monuments of early Christianity, London, 1894; 2. ed. 1896. 
A German version by Bur char di was communicated by Harnack , in 
Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1893, 
pp. 721 746. The Bollandists published the Greek text of the Mar- 
tyrium from a cod. Paris, (saec. xi vel xii), in Anal. Bolland. (1895), xiv. 
284 294. E. Th. Klette published a new edition (with a German version 
from the same Greek codex, together with Bur char dz s translation of the 
Armenian text, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1897), xv. 2, 91 ff. ; Max Prinz 
von Sachsen, Der heilige Martyrer Apollonius von Rom, historisch-kritische 
Studie, Mainz, 1903; R. Seeberg, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1893), iv. 836 
to 872; Th. Mommsen y in Sitzungsber. , Berlin, 1894, pp. 497 503; 
A. Hilgenfdd, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 58 91; 
(1898), xli. 185 250; R. Seeberg, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1900), xxi. 225 f . ; 
y. Gcffckcn, Die Acta Apollonii, in Nachrichten von der kgl. Gesellsch. 
der Wissensch. in Gott., phil.-hist. Kl. (1904), iii. v. Gebhardt gives in his 
Acta the Greek text and the version of Burchardi. 

203, probably at Carthage in Roman Africa and not at Thuburbo, 
five catechumens died for their faith. They were Vibia Perpetua, 
a youthful matron of good social standing, Saturninus and Saturus, 
and two slaves Felicitas and Revocatus. With the aid of the auto 
graph notes left by St. Perpetua and St. Saturus an eye-witness com 
posed a forcible and animated narrative of their martyrdom that 
has always been looked on as the pearl of this species of literature. 
We possess, in addition to the original Latin, the text of an ancient 
Greek version ; a second, considerably shorter, Latin text is notably 
a later excerpt, probably taken from the Greek version. While it 
is true that the author or editor of these Acts belonged to the 
party of the Montanists (cc. i 21) and was probably none other 
than Tertullian 1 , there is no evidence to show that the martyrs 
themselves were Montanists. As late as the fifth century these Acts 
where still read at Hippo on the anniversary of the martyrs, in natali 
martyrum Perpetuae et Felicitatis*. 

w . For ^e ori .ginal Latin text see Ruinart , 1. c., 2. ed., pp. 90119; 
Itgne, PL., in. 1360; cf. pp. 61170. The shorter Latin text was 

Tert., De anima, c. 55. 2 Aug ^ germ 2 g o _ 282t 


edited by B. Aube, in 1881 ; the ancient Greek version by J. R. Harris 
and S. K. Gifford, in 1890. A good edition of all three texts is that of 
y. A. Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, Cambridge, 1901, in Texts and 
Studies, i. 2. Equally good is the edition of the two longer texts by 
P. Franchi de Cavalieri , Passio Ss. Perpetuae et Felicitatis, Rome, 1896 
(Romische Quartalschr., Supplement 5). In the introduction to this study 
Franchi has exhibited the evidence in favor of the priority of Latin text. 
A. Fillet, Les martyrs d Afrique: Histoire de S. Perpe tue et de ses com- 
pagnons, Paris, 1885; Neumann, 1. c. , i. 171 176 299 f. Cf. v. Geb 
hardt s Acta for both Greek and Latin texts. 

9. ACTA S. PIONII. Eusebius 1 has left us an account of the 
martyrdom of St. Pionius and other Christians at Smyrna. The 
narrative has reached us in various recensions. While Eusebius places 
their martyrdom in the time of the Antonines, and more particularly 
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Acts in their present state in 
dicate, with every appearance of truth, the year 250 and the reign 
of Decius. 

They were published by Ruinart, 2. ed., pp. 137 151, from an ancient 
Latin version. The Greek text was made known by O. v. Gebhardt from 
a cod. Ven. Marc. 359, in Archiv fiir slavische Philologie (1896), xviii. 
156 171, and in his Acta. He has also promised a larger edition of 
this text with the Latin, Slavonic and Armenian versions. B. Aub6, 
1 Eglise et 1 Etat dans la seconde moitie du III 6 siecle, Paris, 1885, pp. 140 
to 154. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons 
(1891), iv. 271 f. y. A. F. Gregg, The Decian Persecution, Edinburgh, 
1897, pp. 242 261 264 266. 

10. ACTA DISPUTATIONIS S. ACHATII. Achatius (Acacius), pro 
bably bishop of Antioch in Phrygia, but not to be confounded with 
Acacius, bishop of Melitene in Asia Minor, underwent an interesting 
interrogatory before the consular magistrate Marcianus; after examining 
the records of which Decius allowed him to go free. 

The Latin text of the official records is in Ruinart, 2. ed., pp. 152 to 
155. It is certainly a version from the Greek; cf. Aubt, 1. c. pp. 181 to 
194, and the Acta of Gebhardt. 

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 46 47. 





60. General conspectus. 

The edict of toleration issued by the Augusti in January or February 
of 313 restored peace to the Christian Church. At the same time 
it was only a lame attempt at concealing the complete overthrow 
of the heathen state ; there could be but one step more from toleration 
to frank preference of Christianity. In 337 Constantine received the 
baptism that he had long put off. His sons assumed at once a 
hostile attitude towards heathenism. Julian the Apostate (361 363) 
attempted to infuse new life into the moribund polytheism, but his 
efforts only made more manifest the incompatibility between the old 
religion and the exigencies of the new times. In 392 the worship 
of the gods was declared high treason (crimen maiestatis) 1 ; and as 
early as 423 heathenism was looked on in the East as defunct 2 . 

During the campaign against the Persians in which he met his death, 
Julian wrote three books against the Galilaeans, xorca FaXtXaitov, of which 
only some fragments remain. The work began with the words: I hold 
it proper for me to expose to all men the motives which have persuaded 
me that the mendacious teaching of the Galilasans is a malicious invention 
of men. Most of the extant fragments are found in the first book of the 
(only partially preserved) work of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Julian 
( 77> 3)- They have been carefully collected by K. J. Neumann, Scrip- 
torum graecorum qui christianam irnpugnaverunt religionem quae super- 
sunt, fasc. in, Leipzig, 1880. The same writer has also translated them 
into German: Kaiser Julians Biicher gegen die Christen, Leipzig, 1880. 
Cf. P. Klimek, Coniectanea in lulianum et Cyrilli Alexandrini contra ilium 
libros (Dissert, inaug.) , Breslau, 1883; Th. Gollwitzer, Observationes cri- 
ticae in luliani imperatoris contra Christianos libros (Dissert, inaug.), 
Erlangen, 1886. For a new but small fragment see Neumann, in Theol. 
Literaturzeitung (1899), pp. 298 304; G. Negri , L imperatore Giuliano 

1 Cod. Theodos., xvi. 10, 12. lb., xvi. 10, 22. 


1 Apostata. Studio storico, Milano, 1901 ; P. Attar d, Julien et les Chretiens: 
la persecution et la polemique (third and last volume of his Julien 1 Apostat), 
Paris, 1902. 

Church was now free from external oppression, she suffered all the 
more from domestic enemies. Both in the East and the West she 
was obliged to defend the purity of her faith against the attacks 
of heresy. It is the development and determination of ecclesiastical 
doctrine that lend to this epoch its distinctive character. To the 
East particularly falls the special task of abstract crystallization and 
speculative illustration of theological truths in their strict significance. 
During a first period which closes with the Second Ecumenical 
Council of Constantinople (381) the true divinity and the perfect 
humanity of the Redeemer are established against Arianism , Mace- 
donianism, Sabellianism and Apollinarianism. In the second period 
which ends with the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) 
the relation of the human and the divine in the God-Man is rigorously 
defined to mean that the two natures are united in one person, but 
without confusion and without change. 

For the literary history of Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism and 
Apollinarianism cf. 61. 

circumstances ecclesiastical science grew with great rapidity. A general 
peace offered favorable opportunities for its free and varied develop 
ment, while the conflict with heresy opened new sources of intellectual 
growth. Within the limits of ecclesiastical theology schools and 
tendencies arose that assumed more definite outlines than in earlier 
times, and through assertion of their special characteristics soon 
became quite opposed one to another. It is quite easy to distinguish 
at once three such tendencies. The Neo-Alexandrine school, 
having freed itself from the subordinationist errors of Origen in 
his Trinitarian teaching, continues to follow, along new paths, the 
impulse of its great master. It aims at a speculative knowledge of 
the truths already grasped by faith, but acknowledges expressly 
that the Pistis (Faith) is the immovable norm of all true Gnosis 
(Knowledge). The head of this new school is Athanasius ; its most 
brilliant disciples are the three* Cappadocians : Basil the Great, Gre 
gory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. It is true that Gregory of 
Nyssa defends the Origenistic Apocatastasis, while somewhat later Didy- 
inus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, also Origenists, maintained 
both the pre-existence of souls and the Apocatastasis; both were 
condemned. Synesius of Cyrene can become a Christian bishop, 
yet remains a Hellene from the tip of his toe to the crown of his 
head. Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, becomes heir to both the 
office and the influence of an Athanasius. The Antiochene school 


continues to oppose the main tendency of the Alexandrine, and by 
reason of its activity in the interpretation of Scripture is known as 
the exegetical school. It beholds in the allegorical interpretation of the 
Scripture, as taught with predilection by the Alexandrine, the deadly 
enemy of all sane exegesis and it lays great stress on an objective, i. e. 
historico-grammatical, rendering of the text. It follows with apprehen 
sive criticism the flight of Alexandrine speculation. Instead of depth 
and warmth of sentiment the Antiochene offers an extremely sober 
intellectual attitude, quite hostile to all extravagance of thought. The 
founder of this school is the martyr Lucian ( 44, 3), the teacher 
of Arius. Its best-known representatives are Diodorus of Tarsus, 
St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Polychronius, and 
Theodoret of Cyrus. By reason of their rationalizing tendencies, most 
of them, particularly Theodore of Mopsuestia, came into conflict with 
the traditional teachings of the Church. Precisely at the height of 
its fame (370 450) almost the entire school was Nestorian in doc 
trine. Indeed, the struggle between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius 
was really the hostile embrace of the Alexandrine and Antiochene 
tendencies. Another intellectual movement is traceable in the fourth 
century and may be described as an excessive Traditionalism. It is 
first tangible in the Anti-Origenistic troubles, and later on rejected 
all scientific knowledge and criticism. As early as the third century 
some writers, notably Methodius of Tyre, had protested with justice 
against certain theses of Origen. However the fourth-century re 
action against that master s influence, as headed by Epiphanius, was 
more a matter of personal interests than of ecclesiastical and scientific 
opposition, and not unfrequently made use of very unworthy means. 
These Origenistic controversies are the first herald of the crisis on 
which Greek theology was entering - - after the middle of the fifth 
century its vitality begins to ebb and weaken. 

C. Hornung, Schola Antiochena de S. Scripturae interpretatione quo- 
nam modo sit merita, Neustadt, 1864; H. Kihn , Die Bedeutung der anti- 
ochenischen Schule auf dem exegetischen Gebiete, nebst einer Abhandlung 
liber die altesten christlichen Schulen, Weissenburg, 1866; Ph. Hergenrother , 
Die antiochenische Schule und ihre Bedeutung auf exegetischem Gebiete, 
Wurzburg, 1866. 

4. ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE. "During this period ecclesiastical 
literature reaches its highest standard of perfection. In almost every 
department a tireless activity reigns; fields hitherto unworked are 
now cultivated with zeal. -- Apologetics. Apologetic literature con 
forms to the changed conditions and assumes a new character. It 
was usually only in self-defence that the earlier apologists had made 
positive attacks on heathenism; henceforth all the apologies for 
Christianity take up a polemical attitude. The defenders of the new 
religion against the attacks of Julian are Gregory of Nazianzus, John 


Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Philippus Sidetes ; against the 
writings of Porphyrius, Eusebius of Caesarea, the younger Apollinaris 
and Macarius Magnes ; Eusebius also enters the arena against Hierocles 
(or rather Philostratus). The apologies with more general tendency 
of Eusebius, Athanasius and Theodoretus are of use rather in attack 
than in defence. Specially anti-Jewish works were composed by Gre 
gory of Nyssa (?), Diodorus of Tarsus, and John Chrysostom. Numerous 
champions arose against the rapid and widespread growth of the 
system of the Persian Mani (f about 277), which propagated under 
a Christian garb ideas that were essentially Persian dualism, with 
its two kingdoms of light and darkness and their corresponding series 
of aeons. Polemics and Systematic Theology. The doctrinal 

writings are mostly occupied with the burning questions of the time, 
and are usually strictly polemical in character. In the fourth century 
the principal opponents of heresy are Eusebius of Caesarea, Atha 
nasius, the three Cappadocians (Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, 
and Gregory of Nyssa), Didymus the Blind and Epiphanius; in the 
fifth century Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus are most 
prominent. The Epitome of Divine Teachings , #etW doffidTcov 
sxtTO/jty, added by Theodoret to his Compendium of Heretical 
Fables is a noteworthy attempt at a systematic theology. Special 
points of doctrine were treated in a markedly positive manner by 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa , and Epiphanius. - - Biblical 
Theology. No attention was paid to textual criticism. Epiphanius alone 
was acquainted with Hebrew ; he also made remarkable progress in the 
department of introductory sciences or biblical antiquities, though it had 
been cultivated before him by Eusebius of Caesarea. Gregory of Nyssa 
undertook occasionally to illustrate and defend the hermeneutical prin 
ciples of the Neo-Alexandrines, while Diodorus of Tarsus and Theo 
dore of Mopsuestia upheld the principles of the Antiochene school. 
The work of Adrianus, entitled Introduction to the Sacred Scrip 
tures , may be considered as an Antiochene manual of Hermeneutics. 
In Christian circles, outside of Antioch and its territory, the alle 
gorizing method maintained its supremacy, and w r as represented by 
such men as Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Didymus the Blind, and Cyril of Alexandria. On the other hand, 
the writers of the Antiochene school were remarkable for their lite 
rary productiveness; the commentaries of Theodoret of Cyrus exhibit 
the highest degree of perfection, both in form and contents, although 
the homilies of John Chrysostom are not inferior as specimens of 
exegetical skill. - - Historical TJieology. Church History, unknown 
to the first three centuries, reached a very high standard. The 
creator of this science is Eusebius of Caesarea. His labors were 
continued by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. The Eunomian Philo- 
storgius wrote a history of the Church, in the interests of Arianism. 


Other ecclesiastical histories written in this period have been lost, 
e. g. those of Philippus Sidetes, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Timotheus 
of Berytus and Sabinus of Heraclea. The latter s work was the first 
known history of the " Councils. Histories of heresy were published 
by Epiphanius and Theodoret. Practical Theology. The ascetico- 
moral literature of the time was the outcome of Christian monasticism 
whose institutions appeared first in Egypt, and were then transplanted 
into Palestine by Hilarion, whence Basil the Great brought them to 
Asia Minor. Ascetical manuals for ecclesiastics, more particularly 
for monks, were written by Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, 
and Chrysostom. To a similar purpose we owe the Life of Saint 
Anthony by Athanasius, and the collections of monastic biographies 
by Timotheus of Alexandria and Palladius. Cyril of Jerusalem was a 
brilliant catechetical expounder, and John Chrysostom a homilist and 
preacher of great renown. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions, that 
undertake to regulate the whole course of Christian and ecclesiastical 
life, belong to the beginning of the fifth century, and were probably 
the work of Syrian Apollinarists. 

ly, in poetry and song the Church enters upon a rivalry with the 
dying heathenism of the period, though in this department of litera 
ture the Greek Church failed to keep pace with the Syrian and the 
Latin Churches. Arius attempted, indeed, to render his heresy po 
pular by means of folk-songs. The elder and the younger Apol- 
linaris of Laodicea, Nonnus (?), and the Empress Eudocia, attempted 
with doubtful success to cast Christian thought into the forms of 
antique poetry. Pre-eminent as Christian poets during the fourth 
century were Gregory of Nazianzus and Synesius of Cyrene, both of 
whom were habitually faithful to the laws of antique metre, though in 
Gregory we meet already new forms of literary art, destined to awaken^ 
by the use of nobler harmonies, a more universal echo in the heart 
of the people. Henceforth rhythmic verse, with its accentuation of 
certain words, tends to suppress the antique quantitative metre. 

61. Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism. 

I. ARIANISM. - - We possess very insufficient knowledge of the 
Christology of the martyr Lucian ( 44, 3); it was, however, decided 
ly subordinationist , and was the basis on which Arius, a pres 
byter of Alexandria (f 336), began to teach that the, Logos or Son 
of God was a creature of God (xTiapa, : nutria), called into being 
out of nothing fi~ >j% uycwy), before the "creation of the world, by 
a free act of divine will, in order to serve God as instrument for 
the creation of the other beings. The Son did not always exist (odx 
aet rp o /cue); there was a time when he was not (yy XOTS ore oi>% 
rjy)\ before he was created he was nothing; like all other creatures 


he too had a beginning by creation (otiz yv xplv jivr^ai, d/JJ dpyr/v 
TOV xTiZeaftai loyz xa} a jTogj 1 . The Son is, therefore, by nature 
entirely distinct from the Father (b Mrfoc, d)JMTpioQ t akv dvopoiOQ 
xa~d TidvTa TTJQ TOO 7tv.rpoc, ouaiac, xal Idwrr^roq 0Ty 2 ; sivoc, TOU olou 
YJJ.-C o>jai.o. b TiaTyp, on dvapyoc, UTidpyet) 3 . He is called the Son of 
God in the same sense as men are called the children of God, and 
if the Scriptures say he was begotten, that begetting is identical 
with the creative act. The second creature of God, after the Logos, 
is the Holy Spirit; only the Father is true God. The first ecu 
menical Council at Nicaea (325) condemned the teaching of Arius 
and declared that the Son of God was of the same nature or sub 
stance with the Father (rbv jibv -co~j tizoo . - . opooumov TW xarpi). 
It was only after long conflicts, in which the very existence of the 
Church was apparently at stake, that the decision of the Council was 
universally accepted. The chief literary champions of Arianism were 
the sophist Asterius (f about 330?), the Antiochene deacon Aetius 
(f about 370), the bishops Acacius of Csesarea (f 366) and Eu- 
nomius of Cyzicus (f about 395). Catholic orthodoxy was represented 
principally by Athanasius, and the three Cappadocians : Basil the 
Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. 

Some fragments of the writings of Arius under the title of A Banquet 
(9a/.ia) are preserved in the writings of Athanasius (Orat. c. Arian., i. 
2 10 ; De synodis, c. 15). There are also letters of Arius to Eusebius, 
bishop ofNicomedia (Theodoret., Hist, eccl., i. 4), to Alexander, bishop of 
Alexandria (Athan., De synodis, c. 16; Epiph., Haer. 69, 7), and a pro 
fession of faith (Socrates, Hist, eccl., i. 26; Sozomenus, Hist, eccl., ii. 27). 
According to Athanasius the Banquet contained also poetical passages. 
Philostorgius says (Hist, eccl., ii. 2) that Arius wrote songs for sailors and 
millers and travellers, and other similar chants , destined to spread his teach 
ings among the people. See (Cardinal) Newmans History of the Arians. 
Le Bachelet , Arianisme, Diet, de la Theol., Paris, 1903, i. 1779 1863. 
Eusebius of Nicomedia (f 341 or 342), the Syllucianist or fellow-disciple 
of Arius in the school of Lucian (see the end of Arius letter to Eusebius), 
defended at once in a series of letters the views of his school-mate. One 
letter, that to Paulinus of Tyre, has reached us through Theodoret (Hist, 
eccl., i. 5); a fragment of a letter to Arius has come down through Atha 
nasius (De synodis, c. 17), where there are also excerpts from letters written 
to Arius by other friends. The sophist and Syllucianist Asterius wrote in 
defence of Arius \ fragments of his writings are quoted by Athanasius (Orat. 
c. Arian., i. 32; ii. 37; iii. 2; De synodis, cc. 18 19, and elsewhere). 
Many other writings of this sophist have perished (scripsit in Epistolam ad 
Romanes et in Evangelia ct Psalmos commentaries et multa alia, says St. Jerome, 
De viris ill., c. 94). For further details of the life of Asterius cf. Th. Zahn, 
Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867, pp. 38 flf. A little work of Aetius has 
been preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 76, n); it defends in 47 theses the 
motto of the Arians avofioio? (sc. 6 uio- T<O -a-roi). Acacius of Ccesarea defended 
his fellow-heretic Asterius against an attack of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra 

1 Arius , Thalia, in Athan., Orat. c. Arian., i. 5. 

2 Athan., Orat. c. xVrian., i. 6. 3 Athan., De synodis, c. 15. 



( 61, 3); fragments of this apology may be seen in Epiphanius (Haer. 72, 
6 I0 ). There is also a Semiarian confession of faith laid by Acacius 
before the Synod of Seleucia in 359 (Epiph., Haer. 73, 25). Many other 
of the writings of Acacius have disappeared (Hier. , De viris ill., c. 98; 
Socrates, Hist. eccl. , ii. 4). In imitation of the sophistical dialectic of 
Aetius, his disciple Eunomius called theology a technology (-s/voAojiav, 
Theod., Haer. fab., iv. 3). We still have a work of Eunomius, entitled 
A-oXoY^Tiy.oc , composed about 360, to which Basil the Great wrote an 
answer (Migne, PG., xxx. 835 868 among the works of Basil the Great; 
cf. Goldhorn, S. Basilii opera dogm. sel. , Leipzig, 1854, pp. 580615). 
In the work of Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius (cf. Rettberg, Marcel- 
liana, Gottingen, 1794, pp. 125147) some brief^ fragments are pre 
served of the counter-reply of Eunomius entitled u-p irjs aroAoYiac ~o- 
Xoyt a, written probably in 378, as an answer to the work of St. Basil. 
For a formal profession of faith made by Eunomius before the Emperor 
Theodosius, about 381 or 383, and severely criticised by Gregory of Nyssa 
in the second book of his work against Eunomius, see Rettberg, 1. c., pp. 149 
to 169, and Goldhorn, 1. c., pp. 618 629. We know only the title of a 
commentary by Eunomius on the Epistle to the Romans, mentioned by 
Socrates (Hist, eccl., iv, 7); there existed once a collection of forty letters 
of Eunomius mentioned by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 138). Eunomius was not 
so much an advanced disciple of Arianism as a logical student and teacher 
of its consequences; cf. C. R. W. Klosse , Geschichte und Lehre des Eu 
nomius, Kiel, 1833; Fr. Diekamp, Die Gotteslehre des hi. Gregor von Nyssa, 
Miinster, 1896, i. 122 ff; Mason, The Five Theological Orations of Saint 
Gregory of Nazianzus (the first four are against Eunomius), Cambridge, 
1899. Fragments of a Commentary on Isaias written by the Arian bishop 
Theodore of Heraclea (f about 355), were published by Mai (Migne, PG., 
xviii. 1307 1378). St. Jerome mentions (Ep. 112, 20) commentaries of 
Theodore on the Psalms and (Comm. in Matth., praef.) on the Gospel of 
Matthew. Batiffol has shown that the Arians were very active in distri 
buting the acts of their martyrs and biographies of their prominent mem 
bers: P. Batiffol, Etudes d hagiographie arienne. La passion de S. Lucien 
d Antioche, in Compte Rendu du congres scientif. internat. des Catho- 
liques, 1891, 2. section, pp. 181 186; Id., Etudes d hagiographie arienne : 
Parthenius de Lampsaque, in Rom. Quartalschr. fiir christl. Altertumskunde 
u. fiir Kirchengesch. (1892), vi. 35 51; cf. ib. (1893), vii. 298 301; 
Id., Un historiographe anonyme arien du 4. siecle, ib. (1895), ^ x - 57 97- 
On the Ecclesiastical History of the Eunomian Philostorgius see 79, 2. 

2. MACEDONIANS!. -- During the main struggle between Catholic 
orthodoxy and Arianism, divergent doctrines were being taught among 
the Arians themselves. The Semiarians rejected the dvojuotot; of the 
extreme Arians, and put in its place, some an O/WIOQ, some an bpoioumoQ. 
Nevertheless, whenever the former drew near to the Catholic doc 
trine fofiooumoQJ concerning the Son of God, they fell away pro 
portionately by insisting that the nature of the Holy Spirit was a 
created and not a divine nature ; hence they were known as Pneumato- 
machi. It was Macedonius , bishop of Constantinople (t after 360), 
the esteemed head of the Semiarians of Thrace, who maintained that 
the Holy Spirit was a being subordinate to the Father and the Son, 
a creature like the angels. The Second Ecumenical Council (Con- 


stantinople, 381) condemned Macedonius and proclaimed the divinity 
of the Holy Spirit (TO 7iveu{j.a TO ayiov ... TO obv KOLTO} xal oiw 
aojUTcpoffXDvo jfjisvov xat G!}ydo~a^6ii.yov). Throughout this controversy 
Athanasius, the three Cappadocians, and Didymus the Blind were 
the theological defenders of the traditional faith of the Church. 

It is not known whether Macedonius left any writings. Among the writers 
of his party are Eusebius of Emesa (f ca. 359), Basil of Ancyra (f after 
360), and George of Laodicea (f after 360). The greater part of the 
works of Eusebius of Emesa, declared <tinnumerabiles by St. Jerome (De 
viris ill., c. 91) have perished. The Greek homilies and fragments col 
lected by Augusti: Eusebii Emeseni quae supersunt opuscula graeca, ad 
fidem codd. Vindobonensium et editionum diligenter expressa et adnotatio- 
nibus hist, et phil. illustrata ab /. Chr. G. Augusti, Elberfeld, 1829 (cf. Migne, 
PG. , Ixxxvi. i, 463 ff.), belong to Eusebius of Alexandria, Eusebius of 
Caesarea and others: see J. C. Thilo , Uber die Schriften des Eusebius 
von Alexandrien und des Eusebius von Emesa, Halle, 1832. 

Two large collections of Latin homilies were formerly attributed with 
out reason to Eusebius of Emesa: a) Homiliae 56 ad populum et mon- 
achos, in reality the work of various ecclesiastical writers of Gaul (Hila- 
rius of Aries, Faustus of Reji, Caesarius of Aries), first collected, appa 
rently, by Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers (f 1081). They are printed 
in Max. Bibl. vet. Patr., Lyons, 1677, vi. 618 675. b) Homiliae 145 (or 
rather 142) in evangelia festosque dies totius anni, taken, and for the 
most part verbally, from the gospel-commentary of Bruno of Segni (f 1123). 
They are in Migne, PL., clxv. 747 864, among the works of Bruno of 
Segni. Cf. for these two collections of homilies Eefller-Jungmann, Institt. 
Patrol. , ii. i, 3 4, and for more details concerning the first collection 
in, 2 3. On the other hand, of the fourteen opuscula or homilies 
extant in Latin only and published by J. Sirmond (1643), under the 
name of Eusebius of Caesarea (Migne, PG., xxiv. 1047 1208), at least 
the first two (De fide adversus Sabellium, i. e. against Marcellus of Ancyra, 
cf. 61, 3) are the work of Eusebius of Emesa. A still unedited discourse 
On resting from labor on the Lord s Day that Zahn inclines to con 
sider the work of Eusebius of Emesa, is printed by Zahn, in Skizzen aus 
dem Leben der alten Kirche, Erlangen, 1894, pp. 278 286. Basil of 
Ancyra and George of Laodicea were joint authors, in the name of their 
party, of a doctrinal memorial that Epiphanius has preserved (Haer. 73, 
12 22). Other works of Basil of Ancyra have perished (Hicr., De viris 
ill., c. 89) ; cf. y. Schladebach, Basilius von Ancyra (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 
1898; F. Cavallera, Le De virginitate de Basile d Ancyre, in Revue 
d histoire ecclesiastique (1905), pp. 5 15. The works of George of Lao 
dicea have also perished; cf. J. Draseke , Gesammelte patristische Unter- 
suchungen, Altona, 1889, pp. 14 24. On the ecclesiastical history of the 
Macedonian Sabinus of Heraclea see 79, 2. 

3. SABELLIANISM. In order to emphasize more forcibly the 
unity of nature of the Father and of the Son, Marcellus, bishop of 
Ancyra in Galatia (f ca. 374), went so far as to suppress the dis 
tinction of persons in the divine nature. According to him the Logos 
is the eternal indwelling power of God, which manifests itself in 
creation of the world as operative power (svspY sta dpaffTixfJ, and 
dwells in Christ for the purpose of redeeming and perfecting the 



human race. This God-Man is called and is Son of God. The Logos 
is not begotten; before the Incarnation there was no Son of God. 
Because of its affinity with the modalistic Monarchianism of the pres 
byter Sabellius (first half of the third century) this teaching of Mar- 
cellus was known in the East as Sabellianism. Owing to the op 
position of Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius it met with but few 

In his Contra Marcellum and De eccksiastica theologia Eusebius of Cae- 
sarea has preserved some fragments of the work of Marcellus De subiec- 
tione Domini Christi (-sot ~r^ TOO uiou OTtoTa-pjc ; cf. i Cor. xv. 28) written 
against the Arian Asterius ( 61, i). Epiphanius quotes (Haer. 72) a letter 
of Marcellus to Pope Julius of the year 337 or 338 and the already ( 61, i) 
mentioned fragments of the work of Acacius against Marcellus, also a pro 
fession of faith made by the followers of Marcellus. Other writings of 
Marcellus, unknown to us, are mentioned by St. Jerome (De viris ill., c. 86). 
All that remains is to be found in Chr. H. G. Rettberg, Marcelliana, Got- 
tingen, 1794; the so-called Legatio Eitgenii diaconi ad S. Athanasium pro 
causa Marcelli is in Migne, PG., xviii. 1301 1306. C. R. W. Klose, Ge- 
schichte und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus, Hamburg, 1837; F T - -A. 
Willenborgy Uber die Orthodoxie des Marcellus von Ancyra, Miinster, 1859; 
Th. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867; Fr. Loofs, Die Trinitats- 
lehre Marcells von Ancyra und ihr Verhaltnis zur alteren Tradition, Sitzungs- 
berichte der k. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 1902. -- Photinus, 
bishop of Sirmium (f ca. 376), was an Asiatic like Marcellus, and his dis 
ciple. Taking for granted that there was in God but one person, he taught 
that our Lord was a man miraculously born , who had attained the divine 
dignity by reason of his high moral development. The numerous Greek 
and Latin writings of Photinus (Hier., De viris ill., c. 107 ; Vine. Lerin., Com- 
monit, c. 16) have all perished; cf. Zahn, 1. c., p. 189 ff. 

4. APOLLINARIANISM. Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in Syria 
(f ca. 390), believed that the true divinity of the Redeemer could 
be saved only by the sacrifice of his perfect humanity; otherwise 
the union of true divinity and perfect humanity would lead to the 
admission of two Sons of God , one by nature and the other by 
adoption because, he says, two beings, perfect in themselves, can 
never unite in one being (3>jo rs/sta ev ^Aa^o.t oo d Marat) 1 . 
Moreover, a perfect humanity would include a human will, and 
therefore the possibility of sin on the part of the Redeemer (07:00 
Yap rlhtoQ av&pcoTtos , sxst xcu apapria) 2 . The Son of God did 
really assume a living flesh (caps), an animated body, but it was 
the divinity itself that took the place of the human VOOQ or of 
the human wet pa. This doctrine was opposed among others by 
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in particular 
by St. Athanasius, or the author (or authors) of the two books 
against Apollinaris that appear among the works of St. Athanasius. 
The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), condemned 
(in its first canon) the heresy of the Apollinarists. Apollinaris was 

1 Athan., Contra Apoll., i. 2. 2 Ib. 


one of the most fertile and versatile ecclesiastical writers of his 
day. He was primarily an exegete, and according to St. Jerome 1 
wrote countless volumes on the Holy Scriptures. The fragments of 
his writings are scattered through many Catenae, where they await 
collection and critical study. There is extant 2 a complete paraphrase 
of the Psalms in hexameters, richly interwoven with reminiscences 
of the old Hellenic poets. Precisely for that reason the peculiar 
color and spirit of the ancient Hebrew chants are lost. There is so 
far no good reason for admitting the hypothesis of Draseke that the 
famous metrical paraphrase of St. John s Gospel 3 written about the 
end of the fourth century and attributed to the famous heathen poet 
Nonnus of Panopolis, is really the work of Apollinaris. His Father, 
the elder Apollinaris, a priest of Laodicea, had already attempted to 
clothe the Christian Scriptures in the garb of antique Hellenic poetry, 
but none of his works have reached us. Both father and son enter 
tained the hope that by such labors they would be able to compensate 
the Christians for the loss of the heathen classics and to win over the 
heathens to the religion of Christ. Also the thirty books of the 
younger Apollinaris against the Neoplatonist Porphyry (f ca. 304) that 
merited special praise from St. Jerome 4 have not reached us. Other 
works not mentioned by Jerome, relating to the Trinity and to 
Christology, seemed also lost, with the exception of some fragments 
especially from his Demonstration of the Incarnation of God in the 
image of Man (dnodet&Q xsp\ TTJQ ft stag aapxwascoc, TTJQ xaft ojutolaMTw 
dv&pwTtouJ, that appear in the refutation of this work by St. Gregory 
of Nyssa (see 69, 3). It is worthy of note that Leontius of Byzantium 
or the author of Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum 5 maintained 
that Apollinarists and Monophysites had put in circulation certain 
writings of Apollinaris (TWSQ ra>v *Anohvapioo Xdfwv) under the authori 
tative names of SS. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, and Julius 
(of Rome). The researches of Caspari (1879) have made it certain that 
the work -q pipoq nianc, that went under the name of Gregorius 
Thaumaturgus ( 47, 5) is really a work of Apollinaris. The pro 
fession of faith 7csp\ TTJC, ffapxaxrewQ TOO ftsou Mfou , attributed to 
Athanasius ( 63, 3), is also very probably from the pen of Apol 
linaris. Similarly several letters were sent abroad under the name of 
Pope Julius I. ( 63, 14) that were very probably written by Apol 
linaris or one of his earliest disciples. Draseke claims for Apol 
linaris a number of other works, namely the Cohortatio ad Gentiles 
and the Expositio fidei , printed among the works of St. Justin 
Martyr ( 17, 5 6), also three homilies ascribed to Gregory Thaumat 
urgus ( 47, 5), the fourth and fifth books of St. Basil s work 

1 De viris ill., c. 104. 2 Migne, PG., xxxiii. 1313 1538. 

3 Ib., xliii. 749 1228. 4 Hier., De viris ill., c. 104. 

5 Migne, PG., Ixxxvi. 2, 1948. 



against Eunomius ( 67, 4), and the first three of the seven dia 
logues De Trinitate current under the name of Theodoret of Cyrus 
( 78, 8). The arguments of Draseke are very general and would 
probably collapse after a serious study of any one of these works 

y. Drdseke, Apollinarios von Laodicea. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. 
Nebst einem Anhang: Apollinarii Laodiceni quae stipersunt dogmatica 
(Texte und Untersuchungen), Leipzig, 1892, vii. 3 4. This work includes 
the results of many special researches published in preceding years. The 
appendix contains a correct reprint from former editions of Antirrheticus 
contra Eunomium (= Pseudo-Basilius M. , Adv. Eun., iv v), Dialog! de 
S. Trinitate (== Pseudo-Theodoretus, Dialogi de Trinitate, i iii), De Trini 
tate (= Pseudo-Justinus M. , Expositio fidei), Fidei expositio (= Pseudo- 
Gregorius Thaumat., YJ xata jjispoc -iVuis), De divina incarnatione libri frag- 
menta, and many smaller remnants. A. Spasskij has reached quite op 
posite conclusions in his (Russian) work on Apollinarios of Laodicea, 
Sergiev, 1895; see the remarks of Bonwetsch, in Byzant. Zeitschr. (1897), 
vi. 175 177. For exegetical fragments on Proverbs, Ezechiel and Isaias, 
attributed to Apollinaris, see A. Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl., Rome, 1854, vii. 
part. 2, 76 80 8291 128130. Specimens of a critical edition of the 
paraphrase of the Psalms mentioned above were published by A. Ludwich, 
Konigsberg, Psalms i 3 (1880, Progr.), 4 -8 (iSSi, Progr.). The very 
extensive interpolation of the text may be traced back to the noted forger 
Jacob Diassorinos (f 1563). See A. Ludwich, in Byzant. Zeitschr. (1892), i. 
292301 ; y. Draseke, Die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen-Para phrase des Apolr 
linarios von Laodicea, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1889), xxxii. 
1 08 120. Id., Zu Apollinarios von Laodicea, Ermunterungsschrift an die 
Hellenen, in Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi. 407 433. For 
new editions of the paraphrase of the Gospel of Saint John, usually attributed 
to Nonnus of Panopolis, we are indebted to Fr. Passow, Leipzig, 1834, 
and A. Scheindler, Leipzig, 1881 (in both the text of the Gospel is in 
cluded). Janssen, Das Johannesevangelium nach der Paraphrase des Non 
nus Panopolitanus , mit einem ausfiihrlichen kritischen Apparat, Leipzig, 
1903, in Texte und Untersuchungen, viii. 4. The hypothesis of the author 
ship of Apollinaris was put forward by Draseke, in Theol. Literaturzeitung 
(1891), p. 332, and in Wochenschrift fur klass. Philol. (1893), p. 349. 
On the merit of this hypothesis, the character of the paraphrase and the 
most recent literature, cf. Bardenhewer, art. Nonnus, in Wetzer and Welte, 
Kirchenlexikon , 2. ed. , also G. Voisin , L Apollinarisme , Paris, 1901; 
cf. Id,, Revue d hist. eccl. (1902), iii. 33 55 239 252; J. Flemming and 
H. Lietzmann, Apollinaristische Schriften, syrisch mit den griechischen 
Texten und einem syrisch-griechischen Wortregister, in Abhhandl. der k. 
Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen (1904). We have lost the Pro 
fession of faith of Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, one of the earliest and most 
active of the disciples of Apollinaris. It is mentioned by St. Gregory of 
Nazianzus (Ep. 102, ad Cledon.). 

After the death of their master the Apollinarists divided into two 

parties, the followers of Polemon (or Polemius] and those of Valentinus ; 

. C. Z. Gieseler, Commentat. qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de 

:i persona opiniones illustrantur partic. II (Progr.), Gottingen, 1838, 

pp. 1 8 21, where the extant fragments of Polemon s writings are found 

-20). The author of the Adv. fraudes Apollinaristarum (Migne, PG., 

<xvi. 2, 19481969) has saved a few fragments of the writings of Valen- 

tmus, the adversary of Polemon, and of those of his disciple and follower, 


Timotheus, bishop of Berytus ; cf. Fr. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, Leipzig, 
1887, pp. 84 ff. For the Ecclesiastical History of Leontius see 79, 2. 
Valentinus quotes the Christological profession of faith of an Apollinarist 
bishop Job (Migne, 1. c., 1952 3320; cf. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen 
zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1879, P- 2 4-)- Tne forger 
of the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, in all probability identical w^ith 
the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, leaves no doubt as to his 
Apollinarian tenets ( 9, i). H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und 
seine Schule, Tubingen, 1904. 

62. Eusebius of Csesarea. 

I . HIS LIFE. - - The golden age of patristic literature opens with 
the splendid productions of Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Csesarea in 
Palestine (ca. 265 to ca. 340). This land was at once his home and 
the scene of his literary activity. It was in Csesarea, which later 
became his episcopal see, that he received his intellectual training. 
In this city he enjoyed for many years the society of the learned 
priest Pamphilus, whose name he assumed as a token of veneration 
and gratitude; hence he was known as Eusebius Pamphili, i. e. the 
spiritual son of Pamphilus. When the latter was thrown into prison 
during the persecution of Maximinus Daza, Eusebius accompanied 
him and worked with him at an Apology for Origen ( 45, i). In 
309 Pamphilus died as martyr; at a later date Eusebius honored his 
memory by a biography in three books ( 45, i). He escaped 
further dangers in the persecution by his flight from Csesarea to 
Tyre, and thence into Egypt. Here he was seized and imprisoned, 
but it is uncertain how long he suffered as a witness to the Christian 
faith. At the close of the persecution he returned to Csesarea, pro 
bably in 313, became its bishop, and a very influential one, for he 
enjoyed in a special degree the favor of Constantine. His defects are 
henceforth no less manifest than his good qualities : we behold in him 
a lack of personal independence and of clearness in his doctrinal ideas, 
that very seriously affect his work as a Christian bishop. He does 
not grasp the importance and drift of the controversy about the 
Trinity. He is constantly in the field as a peace-maker, with sug 
gestions of mutual concessions on the basis of a recognition of the 
true divinity of the Redeemer in simply biblical terms. He believed 
that the Homoousian doctrine of Athanasius led logically to Sabel- 
lianism; this phantom was ever before his eyes and was the motive 
which drew him ever more deeply within the orbit of Arianism. At 
the Council of Nicsea (325) he sought to take up a conciliatory at 
titude, but at the express wish of the Emperor signed the profession 
of faith drawn up by the Council. It is significant, however, that the 
term o/jtooumoQ never occurs in his writings, not even in those com 
posed after the Council of Nicaea. He held communion with the 
Arians and may have influenced the imperial measures against the 
orthodox bishops. He certainly took a prominent part in the 


Council of Antioch (330) which deposed Eustathius, bishop of that 
city and an active opponent of Arianism; he was also a member 
of the Synod of Tyre (335) that meted out a similar treatment to 
Athanasius, the head of the orthodox party. More than once Eu- 
sebius composed public laudations of Constantine. On the occasion 
of the Emperor s tricennalia or thirtieth anniversary of the as 
sumption of the reins of government (July 25., 335), he delivered a 
panegyric on Constantine (elq KajvcravTuov TOV fiaauia TptaxovTa- 
svqptxuQj 1 . When the emperor died (May 22., 337) he dedicated to 
his memory a lengthy eulogium remarkable for declamation rather 
than for genuine eloquence (SLQ rov KwvoTavclvoo TOO ^aadlcoQ ftiov 
Xofoi 3 ) 2 . 

2. HISTORICAL WORKS. - - Among his numerous writings none 
have received such unqualified approval, dating from his own time, as 
the great historical works known as the Chronicle and the Eccle 
siastical History . They have earned for him such titles as the 
Christian Herodotus and Father of Church History . The Chroni 
cle 3 bears the name of Divers Histories (TtavTodaTrq iawpia) and 
is divided into two parts: the %povofp<upla. and the xavcov ypovtxoq. 
He says in the preface that it is his purpose to furnish an ethno 
graphic chronology based on the historical monuments of the nations 
(I. part), and then to attempt (II. part) a synchronistic co-ordination 
and concordance of these historical data. Before him Julius Afri- 
canus had attempted to harmonize the historical traditions of the 
Gentiles and the Jews ( 43, 2); it is to the credit of Eusebius that 
he accomplished this task and that his calculations were accepted 
as successful. Throughout his work runs the dominant idea of a 
close relation between the most remote history and the history of his 
own time; the influence that these views of Eusebius exercised 
on all later historiography is simply incalculable. Eusebius wrote 
this work for Orientals, but St. Jerome transplanted to the West 
the historical ideas of the Chronicle , by translating the 2. part of 
it into Latin, and continued it to 379 (a. Abr. 2395; cf. 93, 6) 
i. e. he added fifty-four years to the historical text of Eusebius, who 
had stopped at 325 (a. Abr. 2341). The first part of the Chronicle 
was unknown to us until the publication of the Armenian version. 
The Greek text of both parts has perished, save for some fragments. 

In its first edition the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (sxxtyma- 
ffrtxvj toropia) 4 described the vicissitudes of the Church from its foun 
dation to the victories of Constantine over Maxentius (October 28., 312), 
and of Licinius over Maximinus Daza (April 30., 313), both of which 
victories are treated by Eusebius as the triumph of Christianity over 
paganism. These victories are the subject of the last chapter in the 

1 Migne, PG., xx. 13151540. 2 lb-> xx 9 o 5 _ I23O> 

3 Ib., xix. * Ib., xx. 


ninth book of the History, and the concluding words are evidently 
written as a suitable ending to the whole work. At a later date Eusebius 
added a tenth book, which brings the history of the Church down to the 
defeat of Licinius (July 3., 323) i. e. to the sole rulership of Constantine. 
The Ecclesiastical History is a very rich collection of historical facts, 
documents, and excerpts from a multitude of writings belonging to the 
golden youth of the Christian Church. The value of these materials 
is beyond all calculation , although the text in which they are in 
corporated, can lay claim neither to completeness of narrative net- 
to an evenly distributed treatment of events, much less to an orderly 
and genetic exposition of its store of historical information. On the 
other hand, it is a source-book in the fullest sense of the word. 
Eusebius has been reproached with deliberate falsification of facts, 
but the reproach cannot be proved, although here and there his 
personal feelings of favor or of dislike may have influenced his judg 
ment or hindered breadth of view. We owe to Rufmus ( 92, 3) 
a Latin paraphrase of the Church History. It is easier to defend 
the historical value of this work than that of the statements con 
cerning Constantine (see 62, i) wherein he has been often reproached 
with intentional alteration of the facts of history. In them Eusebius 
is less a historian than a panegyrist, who now palliates and now 
exaggerates. In opposition to contemporary pagan writers he aims at 
setting in a clear light the Christian and ecclesiastical sentiments of 
the emperor. - - We have lost a collection of ancient Acts of the 
martyrs compiled by Eusebius ( 59, i); on the other hand, we 
possess still a little work written by him on the contemporary martyrs 
of Palestine. It has reached us in two recensions: a shorter one in 
Greek, usually printed as an appendix to the eighth book of the 
Church History, and a longer one, the complete text of which is 
extant only in a Syriac version. 

3. EXEGETICAL WORKS. Besides his superior gifts as a historian 
Eusebius possessed a great aptitude for exegetical studies. He is lack 
ing, however, in sound and clear hermeneutical principles; it is sub 
stantially the manner and method of Origen that predominate in his 
exegetical writings. He must have written continuous commentaries 
on an entire series of biblical books. The commentary on the Psalms 
edited by Montfaucon 1 had numerous gaps, and ends with Psalm 118. 
Mai discovered in several Catenae fragments of the commentary on 
the following Psalms 2 ; Pitra was able to add other remnants of the 
commentary on preceding Psalms which show Eusebius to have been a 
plagiarist of Origen. The greater part of the commentary on Isaiah 3 
has been saved ; in it he promises an historical exposition but often 
ends in arbitrary allegorism. Of his commentaries on New Testament 

1 Ib., xxiii. 2 Ib., xxiv. 9 76. 3 Ib., xxiv. 89 526. 


books very considerable fragments have reached us, chiefly of those on 
the Gospel of Saint Luke 1 . Other works of Eusebius may be described 
as introductory to the study of the Bible. Thus, he wrote a kind of 
Gospel Harmony 2 which makes evident in ten tables those statements 
of the Four Gospels which are common to all, to three, or to two - 
or which are found only in one Gospel; also Biblical Questions and 
Answers (nspl rcbv iv sdaffsMoic; CyTyfiaTcov xai MffseovJ 3 concerning 
the Gospels, extant only in excerpts and fragments. They undertake 
to reconcile apparent antilogies in the Gospels, such as affect the 
genealogies of the Savior, His burial, resurrection, etc.- Of more im 
portance is a (fragmentary) alphabetical list of the place-names of the 
Old Testament, with description and name of each site as it was in 
his day (nspt rcov To~txa>y dvo/Jtdrcov rwv ev rrj fteia fpo.wr^ not printed 
in Migne). Eusebius constructed it from an ancient topography of 
Palestine and Jerusalem ; Jerome translated it into Latin and added to 
its contents ( 93, 5). Only a fragment has reached us of his work 
On Easter (nspt rrjc, TOO T.a.ayo. kopriJQ)*, written on occasion of 
the discussions at the Council of Nicaea (325) concerning the feast, 
and well-known because of its beautiful testimony to the holy sacrifice 
of the Mass. 

4. APOLOGETIC WORKS. - - He took up his pen on many oc 
casions, and always with success, in defence of the Christian religion 
and against paganism. The chief characteristic of his apologetical 
writings is the vastness of their historical erudition. The Evangelical 
Preparation (sdaffehxy TrpoTrapaffxeuTjJ in fifteen books demon 
strates the incomparable superiority of Christianity, and even of 
Judaism , over all the religious and philosophical systems of the 
heathens. The Evangelical Demonstration (etjaffsfaxy dnodstqif) ex 
pounds in twenty books the thesis that Christianity is the divine 
development of Judaism ; only ten books of this work have reached 
us 6 . He drew up a compact abridgment of these two large works 
in the five books of a treatise On the appearance of God among 
men* fnspl TTJQ $soy>avsiaQj. Its Greek text is extant only in frag 
ments 7 . Quite similar must have been the work entitled A general 
elementary Introduction (y xoMXou oror/ziwor^ zloa^fq). Almost 
the only extant fragments of it are the four books of his Prophetic 
sayings (sxAofal xpopyTtxalj 8 , in which he expounds the Messianic 
prophecies of the Old Testament. His large work against Porphyry 
(f ca. 304) in twenty-nine or thirty books, twenty of which were known 
to Saint Jerome 9 , has perished. His little work against Hierocles, pro 
curator of Bithynia (ca. 303), is a critique of the portrait of Apollonius 

1 Migne, PG., xxiv. 529606. 2 Ib., xxii. 12751292. 

3 Ib., xxii. 8791016. 4 Ib., xxiv. 693706. 5 Ib., xxi. 

6 Ib., xxii. 13794. 7 Ib., xxiv. 609690. 8 Ib., xxii. 1021 1262. 

9 Hier., De viris ill., c. Si. 


of Tyana as drawn by Philostratus. Hierocles had plagiarized in order 
to establish a parallel between Apollonius and Christ fnpot; ra 07:0 
(IhAoGTpdrou S!Q AnoXAat&iov rbv Tuavia dt.a rr/v ^Ispoydzl Ttapatytpdsiaay 
a jrou rz xal rou Xptaroo ffufxpurw) 1 . Eusebius shows with sarcastic 
acumen that the true source of the work of Hierocles was the highly 
idealized portrait of the Neo-Pythagorean and magician Apollonius, 
or merely fables and legends put together by Flavius Philostratus ; in 
particular, the alleged miracles of Apollonius were either forgeries 
of the historian or demoniac imitations of the miracles of Christ. 

doctrinal works belong to the history of Arianism. In the two books 
Against Marcellus (xara MapxiXXoo)* he undertakes to prove that 
Marcellus of Ancyra ( 61, 3) was justly deposed by the Arians at 
the Council of Constantinople (336), on account of the identity of his 
Trinitarian teaching with Sabellianism which was condemned in the 
third century. The three books of his work On ecclesiastical theology 
(nspt T 7jQ sxxtymaffTtxjJG &so^iaQJ s are an exposition and defence 
of the true doctrine of the Logos. Socrates 4 and Theodoret 5 have 
preserved for us a letter of Eusebius to the people of his diocese 
in which he explains his attitude at Nicaea and the meaning of o/wouffcoQ. 
Nicephorus of Constantinople (f 826) inserted in his Antirrhetica and 
criticised sharply the principal passages of a letter of Eusebius to 
Constantia, the sister of Constantine, in which he speaks in a hostile 
sense concerning portraits of Christ. Of the fourteen homilies, extant 
only in Latin, and attributed to him 6 , some, at least, are certainly 
not from his pen. 


EUSEBIUS. The manuscript-tradition of the writings of Eusebius is de 
scribed by Preuschen, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 551 586. 
The only complete edition or reprint of the works of Eusebius is that by 
Migne, PG., xix xxiv. A handy edition of some of his writings is that 
by W. Dindorf : Praepar. evang. , Demonstr. evang. , Hist. eccl. , Leipzig, 
1867 1871, 4 vols. \ cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions and Mss. of Euse 
bius, i., in Journal of Theolog. Studies (1902), iii. 93 102. Nearly all 
the works of Eusebius were translated into Syriac, many of them also into 
Armenian. Selected works have appeared in German versions, e. g. 
M. Stigloher (Church History, Martyrs of Palestine), Kempten, 1870, and 
y. Molzberger (Life of Constantine), ib., 1880 (Bibl. d. Kirchenvater). An 
English version of the Church History, with a commentary, was edited by 
McGiffert, and one of the two works on Constantine by E. Richardson, in 
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 
ser. II, New York, 1890, i. Fabridus, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, vii. 335518: 
De Eusebio Caesareensi et aliis historiae ecclesiasticae atque chronicorum 
scriptoribus graecis. F. J. Stein, Eusebius, Bischof von Casarea, nach 
seinem Leben, seinen Schriften und seinem dogmatischen Charakter, Wiirz- 

1 Migne, PG., xxii. 795 868. * Ib., xxiv. 707 826. 

3 Ib., xxiv. 825 1046. 4 Hist, eccl., i. 8. 5 Hist, eccl., i. n. 

6 Migne, PG., xxiv. 1047 1208. 


burg, 1859; Salmon, in Dictionary of Christian Biography, London, 1880, 
ii. 308 355: Eusebius of Cassarea; Van den Gheyn, S. J., in Vigouroux, 
Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 1899, ii. 2051 2056: Eusebe. 


Eusebii Pamph. Caes. episc. Chronicon bipartitum mine primum ex arme- 
niaco textu in latinum conversum, adnotationibus auctum, graecis fragmentis 
exornatum, opera P. I. B. AucJier, Venice, 1818, 2 vols. Eusebi Chronicorum 
libri duo. Edidit Alfred Schoene, Berlin, 1866 1875, 2 vols. Eusebi Chroni 
corum liber prior. Ed. A. Schoene. Armeniacam versionem latine factam ad 
libros manuscriptos recensuit H. Petermann. Graeca fragmenta collegit et 
recognovit, appendices chronologicas sex adiecit A. Schoene, 1875. (Eusebi 
Chronicorum Canonum quae supersunt ed. A. Schoene. Armeniacam versio 
nem latine factam e libris manuscr. rec. H. Petermann. Hieronymi ver 
sionem e libris manuscr. rec. A. Schoene. Syriam epitomen latine factam 
e libro Londinensi rec. E. Roediger, 1866.) Eusebii Canonum epitome ex 
Dionysii Telmaharenis Chronico (syriace) petita, sociata opera verterunt 
notisque illustrarunt C. Siegfried et H. Gelzer, Leipzig, 1884. Cf. A. v. Gut- 
schmid, Unterstichungen liber die syrische Epitome der Eusebischen Canones 
(Progr.), Stuttgart, 1886 (A. v. Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, herausgegeben 
von Fr. Riihl, Leipzig, 1889, i. 483 529); A. Schoene, Die Weltchronik des 
Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus, Berlin, 1900; C. H. 
Turner, The Early Episcopal Lists, i : The Chronicle of Eusebius, in Journal 
of Theol. Studies (1900), i. 181 200; H. Montzaka, Die Quellen zu den 
assyrisch-babylonischen Nachrichten in Eusebius Chronik, in Beitrage zur 
alten Geschichte (1902), pp. 351 405. 

The editio princcps of the Church History and of the two works on 
Constantine (with the continuations of the Church History of Socrates, 
Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, Philostorgius, Theodorus Lector) was issued, 
by commission from the French episcopate, by Henri de Valois (Valesius, 
t 1676), Paris, 1659 : ^73, and again in 1677, 3 vols. It was reprinted at 
Frankfort, 1672 1679, and Amsterdam, 1695; W. Reading published an 
improved edition at Cambridge, 1720, 3 vols. New recensions of the text 
of the Church History have been made by F. A. Heinichen, Leipzig, 1827 
to 1828, 3 vols. ; E. Burton, Oxford, 1838, 2 vols; H. Laemmer, Schaffhausen, 
1859 1862, 6 fasc. In 1830 Heinichen edited the two works on Constantine 
and in 1840 (on the appearance of Burton s edition) he added Supplementa 
to his own edition of the Church History. The Latin paraphrase of Rufinus 
was edited anew by Th. Mommsen , in the Griechische christliche Schrift- 
stellerdererstendreijahrhunderte, Eusebius, Leipzig, 1903, ii. i (Booki v); 
cf. A. Harnack, in Berlin. Sitzungsberichte (1903), pp. 300307. There 
are also handy editions of the Church History by A. Schwegler, Tubingen, 
1852, and W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1871 ( 62, 6). One to form part of Nizzini s 
Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum is announced. A very old Syriac version 
of the Church History was published by P. Bedjan , Leipzig, 1897, also 
by W. Wright and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1898; E. Nestle, Die Kirchen- 
geschichte des Eusebius, aus dem Syrischen ins Deutsche ubersetzt, in 
Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 1901, vi. 2 ; Id., in Zeit- 
schrift d. d. Morgenl. Gesellsch. (1902), Ivi. 335564. A fifth-century 
Armenian version from the Syriac was published at Venice, 1877. Eu 
sebius Kirchengeschichte, Buch VI und VII. Aus dem Armenischen von 
E. Preuschen, in Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 1902, 
vii. 3. In the edition of Wright and McLean the Syriac text is followed 
by a comparison between it and the Armenian. The works on Constan 
tine have been recently edited by Ivar A. Heikel, in the Griechische christ- 


liche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Leipzig, 1902, i. Fr. Over- 
beck, Uber die Anfange der Kirchengeschichtschreibung (Progr.), Basel, 
1892 ; Id., Die Bischofslisten und die apostolische Nachfolge in der Kirchen- 
geschichte des Eusebius (Progr.), Basel, 1898; A. Halmel, Die Entstehtmg 
der Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius von Casarea, Essen, 1896; P. Meyer, 
De vita Constantini Eusebiana (Progr.), Bonn, 1882. 

The following works treat of special questions and problems connected 
with the Church History : H. S. Lawlor, Two notes on Eusebius in Herm- 
athena (1900), xi. 1049 (cf. 33, 3); G. Mercati, Sul testo e sul senso 
di Eusebio, Hist, eccl., vi. 16, in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana 
antica (Studi e Testi), Rome, 1901, pp. 47 60; W. E. Crum , Eusebius 
and Coptic Church Histories, London, 1902 (cf. 99, i); P. Corssen, Z\i 
Euseb., Hist, eccl., iii. 39 und iii. 15 , in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. 
Wissensch. (1902), iii. 242246; E. Schwartz, Zu Eusebius Kirchen 
geschichte: I. Das Martyrium Jakobus des Gerechten, II. Zur Abgar- 
legende, in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1903), iv. 4866; 
Fr. Herklotz, QpXi a? (Eus., Hist, eccl., ii. 23), in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. 
(1903), xxvii. 572 574; A. Crivellucci, Delia fede storica di Eusebio nella 
vita di Costantino, Livorno, 1888; V. Schultze, Quellenuntersuchungen zur 
Vita Constantini des Eusebius, in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1893- ^94), 
xiv. 503 555. Concerning the genuineness of the documents, edicts and 
letters, and of a discourse of the emperor in the Vita Constantini, see O. Seeck, 
in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1898), xxviii. 321 345 (they are genuine), 
and A. Crivellucci, in Studi storici (1898), vii. 411 429 453 459 (some 
documents are not genuine) ; also jr. A. Heikel, in the edition mentioned 
above, pp. LXVI LXXXIII (genuine ; but he denies the genuineness, or even 
the composition by Eusebius, of the Oratio in sanctorum coetum, sometimes 
printed as the fifth book of the Vita Constantini). C. Weyman, Eusebius 
von Casarea und sein Leben Konstantins, in Histor.-polit. Blatter (1902), 
cxxix. 873 892 ; y. Viteau, De Eusebii Caesariensis duplici opusculo Tispi 
Ttov Iv IIaXa .cmv7j jxaptuprjaavrtov (These), Paris, 1893; Br. Violet, Die palesti- 
nensischen Martyrer des Eusebius von Casarea, ihre ausftihrlichere Fassung 
und deren Verhaltnis zur kiirzeren, in Texte und Untersuchungen -- new 
series, Leipzig, 1896, xiv. 4; A. Halmel , Die palastinensischen Martyrer 
des Eusebius von Casarea in ihrer zweifachen Form, Essen, 1898; G. Mer 
cati, I martiri di Palestina d Eusebio di Cesarea nel codice Sinaitico, in 
Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere, ser. II, Milan, 
1897, xxx. 


Exegetical works. His commentaries on the Psalms are printed in B. de 
Montfaucon, Collectio nova Patrum et scriptorum graecor. , Paris, 1706, 
2 vols; supplements in A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibl. , Rome, 1847, iv. 
part. I, 65 107; additions in Pitra, Analecta sacra, Paris, 1883, iii. 365 
to 520. New and notable fragments of commentaries on the Psalms in 
Mercati, Alcune note di letteratura patristica, Milan, 1898. The exposition 
of the Canticle of canticles, edited by J. Meursius (Eusebii, Polychronii, 
Pselli in Canticum canticorum expositiones graece, Leiden, 1617, pp. 1 74) 
is not only not the work of Eusebius, but contains nothing from his pen. 
Its proemium, (apparently) attributed to Eusebius, was printed by Pitra 
(1. c. pp. 529 537) because it had been left out by Migne. For more de 
tailed information concerning this commentary on the Canticle of can 
ticles, see T/i. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons 
und der altlkirchl. Lit., Erlangen, 1883, ii. 238 ff. Mai (1. c.) gives a frag 
mentary Commentarius in Lucae evangelium (pp. 159 207) and very in- 


significant fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 207), Daniel (pp. 314 
to 316), and Proverbs (p. 316). The same author published copious re 
mains of the three books of Quaestiones et solutiones evangelicae, i. e. 
a) an Epitome selecta ex compositis ab Eusebio ad Stephanum circa evan- 
^elia quaestionibus ac solutionibus , from the first two books (Greek and 
Latin, pp. 217 254, 16 questions), and an Epitome selecta ex eiusdem 
Eusebii ad Marinum quaestionum evangelicarum libro, i. e. from the third 
book (Greek and Latin, pp. 255 267, 4 questions); b) fragments of the 
same work, from the two first books (pp. 268282; 279 282 are Syriac 
fragments) and from the third book (pp. 283303); c) Ex quaestionibus 
Eusebii excerpta apud SS. Ambrosium et Hieronymum (pp. 304 309). 
An eleventh-century codex of the Gospel Harmony (in ten tables) was 
published in photographic facsimile , with commentary , by A. Valentini, 
Brescia, 1887. Eusebii Pamph. Onamasticon urbium et locorum S. Scrip- 
turae. Graece cum lat. Hieronymi interpretatione ediderunt F. Larsow 
et G. Par they, Berlin, 1862. The same works (of Eusebius and Jerome) 
are edited by P. de Lagarde , Onamastica sacra, Gottingen, 1870, 2. ed. 
1887; P. Thomsen , Palastina nach dem Onamasticon des Eusebius, in 
Zeitschr. d. d. Palastinavereins (1903), xxvi. 97 142 145 188; E. Kloster- 
mann, Eusebius Schrift Trspl TWV TOTUXWV <5vojxaTa>v sv T/J tjfsia 7pa<p7J, in Texte 
und Untersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 1902, viii. 2b. Klostermann has 
edited anew the Onamasticon of Eusebius, in Die Griech. christl. Schrift- 
steller etc., Leipzig, 1904, iii. i. The fragment of the De solemnitate pa- 
schali was first published by Mai, 1. c., pp. 208 216. 

Apologetic writings. The Praeparatio evangelica was edited by F. A. 
Heinichen, Leipzig, 1842 1843, 2 vols., and by T/i. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843, 
4 vols. ; cf. y. A. Heikel, De Praeparationis evangelicae Eusebii edendae 
ratione quaestiones, Helsingfors, 1888. Gaisford also edited the Demon- 
stratio evangelica, Oxford, 1852, 2 vols.; Mai discovered and published 
in Nova Patrum Bibl., iv., pars I, a small fragment of the fifteenth book 
of the Demonstratio. A new edition of the Demonstratio, with an English 
version, has been brought out by C. H. Gifford, London, 1903, 4 vols. A 
Syriac version of the De theophania was edited by S. Lee from a Codex 
of the year 411, London, 1842, with an English translation, Cambridge, 
1843. Important fragments of the Greek text were discovered by Mai and 
published, 1. c., pp. 108159 3 IQ 312. H. Gressmann , Studien zu Eu 
sebius Theophanie, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1903, viii. 3. 
Th. Gaisford also edited the Eclogae propheticae, Oxford, 1842; cf. Nolte, 
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1861), xliii. 95 109. Some small fragments of other 
books of the Generalis elementaria introductio are in Mai, 1. c., pp. 316 
to 317. The Adversus Hieroclem, Contra Marcellum and De ecclesia- 
stica theologia were published by Gaisford, Oxford, 1852. The Adversus 
Hieroclem is also found in the edition of Flavius Philostratus by C. L. 
Kayser, Leipzig, 18701871, 2 vols. (i. 469413); M. Faulhaber , Die 
griechischen Apologeten der klassischen Vaterzeit: I. Eusebius von Ca- 
sarea, Wiirzburg, 1895; cf. A. Seitz , Die Apologie des Christentums bei 
den Griechen des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts, Wiirzburg, 1895. 

Doctrinal Writings. We have already mentioned Gaisford s editions of 
the Contra Marcellum and the De ecclesiastica theologia. See Pitra, 
Spicil. Solesmense, i. 338 ff., for extracts from the Letter to Constantia 
in the Antirrhetica of Nicephorus. For the fourteen Latin homilies see 
61, 2. 

9. EUSTATHIUS OF ANTiocH. St. Eustathius of Antioch ( 62, i) who 
died in exile in 360 at Trajanopolis in Thrace, left many dogmatic and 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 253 

exegetical writings, only one of which, it seems, has reached us : his treatise 
on the Witch of Endor and the apparition to Samuel (i Kings, xxviii. 
Septuagint) written against Origen (Migne, PG. , xviii. 613 674). Eusta- 
thius denies the reality of the apparition (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, 69, 2) 
while at the same time he vigourously refutes the arbitrary allegorizing of 
Origen. A. Jahn brought out a new edition of this treatise, together with 
the homily it refers to, in Texte und Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1886, 
ii. 4. The so-called Commentarius in Hexaemeron (Migne , PG. , xviii. 
707 794) and Allocutio ad imperatorem Constantinum in Concilio Nicaeno 
(ib., 673 676) are spurious. To the previously known fragments of his lost 
works Pitra and Martin have added three Greek and ten Syriac fragments 
in Analecta sacra ii., Prolog, xxxviii xl, and iv. 210 213 441 443. 

63. St. Athanasius. 

1. HIS LIFE. - - The life and labors of St. Athanasius presents a 
complete antithesis to the weak and vacillating character of Eusebius 
of Caesarea. The former is the steadfast champion of the true faith, 
the pillar of the Church , o aroXoq TTJQ ExxtyfftaQ, as St. Gregory 
of Nazianzus calls him *. He is , at the same time , the God-given 
physician of her wounds, larpbq TO>V Iv raiq, ixxhjaiatc, dfifKOffrqftdrcov, 
says St. Basil the Great 2 , truly one of the most imposing figures in 
all ecclesiastical history. His life and sufferings are most closely 
connected with the history of Arianism. Athanasius was born about 
295 at Alexandria and while quite young attracted the attention of 
Alexander, bishop of that city. As a youth he was for a con 
siderable period under the direction of the great Saint Anthony, the 
patriarch of the Cenobites. The other circumstances of his child 
hood and youth are unknown to us. In 319 Alexander ordained 
him deacon and made him his secretary and counsellor. He accom 
panied Alexander to the Council of Nicaea in 325, and proved him 
self a powerful adversary of the Arians 3 . Alexander died April 17., 
328, and Athanasius was unanimously chosen by the people to be 
his successor 4 . At once the most hateful accusations were brought 
against him by the Arians, all of which he conclusively disproved. 
Nevertheless he was condemned by the Arians at their Synod of 
Tyre in 335 and banished by Constantine to Trier, whence he re 
turned to Alexandria in 338 after the Emperor s death. But the hatred 
of the Arians was not satisfied ; Constantius sided with them, and in 
340 Athanasius was again obliged to take refuge in flight. The 
Arian Pistus, and afterward his fellow heretic George of Cappa- 
docia, took possession of his see amid many bloody excesses. Pope 
Julius (337 352) pronounced Athanasius an innocent man, and the 
great Synod of Sardica in Moesia (843 or 344) declared him the 
rightful occupant of the see of Alexandria. However, it was only in 
346 (Oct. 31.) that he was enabled to return to his native city. After 

1 Or. 21, r,. 26. 2 Ep. 82. 3 Socr., Hist, eccl., i. 8. 

4 Athan., Apol. c. Arian, c. 6. 



the death of his brother Constans (350) the emperor Constantius 
was again moved by Arian intrigue to oppress the orthodox believers. 
Yielding to imperial behests the Synods of Aries (353) and Milan 
(355) deposed Athanasius from his see, into which his old enemy, the 
Arian George, violently intruded himself (356), while Athanasius fled 
to the monks in the deserts of Egypt. Julian the Apostate recalled 
the banished bishops (362); by doing so he hoped to increase the 
discords of the Christians. But the conciliatory attitude of Athanasius, 
particularly at the Synod of Alexandria (362), opened a way to the 
return of many Semiarians. For this he was banished again in 362, 
on the pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. He was allowed 
to return by the orthodox Jovian (363 364) who treated him with 
much distinction. Valens, the successor of Jovian (364 378), was 
a bigoted Arian and a cruel persecutor both of the orthodox and the 
Semiarians. A fifth time Athanasius was compelled to quit the city 
and to travel on (in the middle of 365) the road of exile. So 
great, however, was the resistance offered by his flock that at the 
end of four months Valens allowed him to return to Alexandria, where 
the faithful shepherd was henceforth permitted to live in peace until 
his death (May 2., 373). He had become the standard bearer of all 
the Catholics of the East, while in the whole West, Trdffy TY; doasi, 
says St. Basil *, no one was held in more general esteem. 

2. APOLOGETIC WRITINGS. --In the Benedictine edition the series 
of his works opens with two apologetic treatises : Oratio contra gentes 
(kb-foo, xa~a EMrjvcov) 2 and Oratio de incarnatione Verbi (MyoQ Kepi 
TijQ lva.vftpa)7ri)0ea)Q nti Ao?o>j)3, titles that are found apparently in 
all the manuscripts. They are in reality parts of a homogeneous 
work known to St. Jerome 4 as Adrcrsum gentes duo libri. The 
first book lays bare in all its nudity and nullity the pagan pantheism 
and establishes Christian monotheism as the reasonable and necessary 
religion. The second book defends the Christian faith in -the In 
carnation of the Divine Word against the objections of Jews and 
pagans. The work was written before the Arian controversies, about 
320. It is a genuine work of Athanasius ; the efforts of Schultze and 
Draseke to prove the contrary have utterly failed. 

3. DOGMATICOPOLEMICAL WRITINGS. - - Nearly all his doctrinal 
works are devoted to the overthrow of Arianism. The longest and 
most valuable of them is the Orationes IV contra Arianos (xara 
\4petavwv Mfot o) 5 . The first book sets forth and develops the 
Catholic doctrine of the eternal origin of the Son from the Father 
and the substantial unity of both ; the second and the third books are 
devoted to a detailed exposition of the pertinent scriptural texts ; the 
fourth deals with the personal distinction of the Son from the Father. 

1 Ep. 66. 2 Migne, PG., xxv. 3 96. 3 Ib., xxv. 95 198. 

4 De viris ill., c. 87. 5 Migne, PG., xxvi. 11526. 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 255 

This work was written in the deserts of Egypt during his third exile 
(356 362). About the same time he wrote the four letters to 
Serapion, bishop of Thmuis (rrpoQ Sspaniowa inurcolai o ) 1 in refutation 
of those who admitted the divinity of the Son, but maintained that the 
Holy Spirit was a creature. Quite akin to the latter work is the treatise 
on the Trinity and the Holy Ghost (Liber de Trinitate et de Spiritu 
Sancto) 2 . It was written about 365 and is extant only in Latin. Some 
writers treat as spurious the work On the Incarnation of the Divine 
Word and against the Arians (iztfti TTJQ ivadpxou iirupavstaQ TOO ft sou 
XofO j xa\ xa-a y Apetava>v) B . Brief outlines of the Faith of the Catholic 
Church are found in the letter of the year 363 to the Emperor Jovian 
(irpoQ /copiavby nspi -xiaTzcoq) 4 and the mutilated Sermo maior de fide 
(itepi KiGTecoQ MyoQ o ftsi^wyj 5 . Hoss and Stiilcken have attacked in 
vain (1899) the genuineness of the last two works. Caspari was inclined 
(1866) to attribute to one of Athanasius immediate successors, Peter 
or Timothy, the Interpretatio in symbolum (kpfjL-qvsia SCQ TO fftippoJiov} 6 . 
The question about the genuineness of the profession of faith known 
as De incarnatione Dei Verbi (nspt rTjc, Gapxcorrzcoc, rou fteou Mfou) 7 
is as old as the fifth or sixth century. Caspari declared (1879), and 
rightly, that it belongs to Apollinaris of Laodicea ( 61, 4). The 
so-called Athanasian Creed, known also as the Symbolum Quicumque 
from its first word 8 is an admirable resume of the doctrine of Atha 
nasius, but is not his work. It is rather of Western origin, and was 
thought to have been composed during the fifth century in Southern 
Gaul. Burn inclined at first (1896) to the authorship of Honoratus of 
Aries, but later (1900) accepted with Turner the authorship of Eu- 
sebius of Vercelli; Ommaney declared (1897) for Vincent of Lerins. 
All these conjectures are now set aside by Kiinstle s researches. In 
his Antipriscilliana he shows that the Athanasian Creed was written 
in Spain and was directed against Priscillianism. This Creed was 
known in the Orient only at a later date and never found a place in 
the liturgy ; in the West it was recited at Prime since the ninth century, 
was used by the clergy in giving popular instruction as a summary of 
Christian doctrine, and was held in particular esteem as a basis and 
criterion of ecclesiastical faith. A treatise, written before the year 
343, on Matt. xi. 27 : All things are given to me by the Father 9 , a 
text much misused by the Arians, is apparently only a fragment of the 
original. Very important are three letters about Christological doctrine 
written about 371: the first to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth (rrpoQ 
*Kxix~r]Tov ixiaxoTcov Kopivftou xara riov aipsrixcov) 10 ; a second to Adel- 
phius, bishop and confessor (npvQ AdiXtptov ixiaxoxov xat o/ 

1 Ib., xxvi. 529 676. 2 Ib., xxvi. 1191 1213. 3 Ib., xxvi. 983 1028. 

4 Ib., xxvi. 813 820." 5 Ib., xxv. 199208. 6 Ib., xxvi. 1231 1232. 

7 Ib., xxviii. 25 30. 8 Ib., xxviii. 1582 1583. 

y Ib., xxv. 207220. 10 Ib., xxvi. 10491070. 


xara \4psiavwv) *; a third to the philosopher Maximus (-pbq 
<pdo0o<pov)*. The letter to Epictetus was highly esteemed by the 
contemporaries of Athanasius ; it was copied in full by St. Epiphanius 
in his work against heresies 3 . The Nestorians interpolated it, but 
St. Cyril of Alexandria 4 was able to convict them of fraud by means 
of ancient manuscripts ((Ivrifpaya xaXatd) of the letter. The so-called 
T\vo books against Apollinaris fxara Axokhvapwu Xoyot ft j 5 are 
referred by the Benedictine editors to the last years of Athanasius. 
The name of Apollinaris does not appear in the work itself, and 
there are reasons for doubting its authenticity. Draseke holds (1889) 
that these two books were composed at Alexandria soon after the 
death of the Saint, but by two distinct persons, the first (probably) 
by Didymus the Blind, and the second (probably) by Ambrosius of 
Alexandria, a disciple of Didymus 6 . The following works and others 
are rightly regarded as of dubious parentage: Testimonia ex Sacra 
Scriptura de naturali comnmnione similis essentiae inter Patrem et 
F ilium et Spiritum Sanctum 1 , Epistola cat ho lie a*, Refutatio hypo- 
crisis Meletii et Eusebii Samosatensis adv. consubstantialitatem^. 
The Disputatio habit a in concilio Nicaeno contra A Hum 10 ,, Doctrina 
ad Antiochum ducem n , Qiiaestiones ad Antiochum ducem 12 , and several 
other works, are known to be spurious. 

4. IIISTORICO-POLEMICAL WRITINGS. - - In his conflicts with the 
Arians, Athanasius often found himself compelled to appeal to the 
truth of history. Three apologies were written by him, with a view to 
justify his conduct: the Apology against the Arians (d.TioAo^rtxoQ 
xara Apztavcb^j 13 , written about 350 and as an historical authority 
of primary importance; the Apology to the Emperor Constantius 
(npbc, TOV ftaadia Kcovaravriov u.xolo^ ia)^, written in 356; and the 
Apology for his flight (d-oXofia xzpl r^c (purfc afaou) 15 , written in 
357 r 358. Two encyclical letters hold up to public scorn the 
unworthy conduct of his enemies: one written in 341 to all the 
bishops (k-t<jro):r t spwx/w-J 16 , and another in 356 to the bishops of 
Egypt and Libya (~poQ robq ITHCIXOTIOD^ Ar^Tirou xat AtfrjyjQ ixtarofy 
srx jxhoQ xara \-\p*iavS)\>) 17 . The letters on the decrees of the Council 
of Nicsea 18 and on the doctrine of Dionysius 19 , bishop of Alexandria, 
belong to the years 350 354 (40, 3). The letter to the monks 2 o, 
mutilated at the beginning, gives a history of Arianism from 335357, 
and is usually entitled Historia Arianorum. The brief letter to the 

1 Migne, PG., xxvi. 1071 1084. 2 Ib>> xxvi- IO 8 5 _ 1090. 

3 Haer. 77. 4 Ep. 40 and 45. * Migne, PG., xxvi. 10931166. 

Hier., De viris ill., c. 126. 7 Migne, PG., xxviii. 2980. 

Ib, xxviii. 81 84. 9 Ib., xxviii. 85-90. 10 Ib., xxviii. 439502. 

Ib., xxviii. 555 590. 12 Ib-j xxviji 597 _ 7o8 13 Ib<> xxy 247 410. 

Ib., xxv. 595642. is Ib) xxv> 643-680. I6 Ib., xxv. 221240. 

Ib, xxv. 537594- 18 Ib., xxv. 415 476. 19 Ib., xxv. 479522. 

!0 Ib., xxv. 691 796. 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 257 

bishop Serapion 1 , written soon after, 358, relates the terrible death of 
Arius. A letter of the year 359 reviews the history of the doings of 
the Councils of Rimini in Italy and of Seleucia in Isauria of the same 
year 2 . Two letters to Lucifer 3 , bishop of Cagliari, extant in Latin 
only and probably written in Latin, perhaps in 360, give lively expres 
sion to his admiration for the firm resistance of Lucifer to the at 
tacks of the Arians. The synodal letter to the people of Antioch 
(o TTpoq TOVQ AvTto^stQ TotjLOQ) 4 and the letter to Rufinianus 5 treat of 
the measures taken at the Council of Alexandria (362) with regard to 
the reception of the Arians to ecclesiastical communion. The letter 
to the bishops of (Western) Africa 6 warns them against the intrigues 
of the Arians, and may have been written about 369. 

5. EXEGETICAL WORKS. - - We possess, apparently, only frag 
ments of his exegetical writings. They have come down in Catenae 
or Catenae-like compilations, and their respective authenticity is not 
free from suspicion. The most important of them belong to a com 
mentary on the Psalms 7 , and have reached us through the Catenae 
of Psalms of Nicetas of Serrae (end of the eleventh century). This 
compiler usually draws his literal interpretation of the Scripture 
text from Theodoret of Cyrus and the mystical exposition mostly 
from Athanasius, who manifests, here at least, a decided predi 
lection for allegorical exegesis and application of the biblical text. 
In the Benedictine edition these fragments of Psalm-commentaries 
are preceded by a long letter to a certain Marcellinus 8 in which 
Athanasius expresses his great joy at the interest his correspondent 
takes in the Psalms; the latter is assured that a profound study of 
them will prove very instructive and useful. While the authenticity 
of this letter is beyond doubt, it is not at all certain that it is in 
any way related to the commentary which follows. In 1746, a second 
commentary on the Psalms was published by N. Antonelli under the 
name of St. Athanasius 9 ; it confines itself to the exposition of the 
titles of the Psalms and to a simple paraphrase of the text. At present 
this commentary is not considered to be by our Saint, but is attributed 
to Hesychius of Jerusalem. St. Jerome mentions 10 among the works 
of the Saint a Liber de Psalmorum titulis , but the identity of this 
work with the Antonelli commentary is very doubtful. Photius had in 
his hands a commentary of Athanasius on Ecclesiastes and the Can 
ticle of canticles 11 . Fragments of a commentary on Job are printed in 
the Benedictine edition 12 . In the same collection are found fragments 

1 Ib., xxv. 685 690. " Ib., xxvi. 681 794. 

3 Ib., xxvi. 1181 1186. 4 Ib., xxvi. 795 810. 

5 Ib., xxvi. 1179 1182. 6 Ib., xxvi. 1029 1048. 

7 Ib., xxvii. 55 590; some new fragments were published, in 1888, by Pitra. 

8 Ib., xxvii. 1146. <J Ib., xxvii. 649 1344. 10 De viris ill., c. 87. 

11 Bibl. Cod. 139. 

12 Migne, PG., xxvii. 1343 1348; other fragments were^added by Pitra, in 1888. 


of a commentary on the Canticle of canticles 1 , St. Matthew 2 , 
St. Luke 3 and on I Corinthians 4 . All these exegetical materials 
have been drawn from the Catenae. The so-called Synopsis Scrip- 
turae Sacrae (auvotyu; IXITO/JIOG TTJQ ft stag fpapqcj 5 , a work that de 
scribes the contents of all the scriptural books, in many places with 
much acumen and fulness, was not written by our Saint. 

6. ASCETICAL WORKS. - - In 357 (365?) Athanasius composed a 
biography of St. Anthony (/Hog xal TioMreia TOO bo iou 7:o.Tpbc, fyicijy 
AvTcovtou G J as the model of a life consecrated to the service of God. 
It was translated into Latin by Evagrius of Antioch (f 393) and con 
tributed much, both in East and West, to the growing enthusiasm 
for the ascetic and monastic life. In the Benedictine edition the Latin 
translation is joined to the Greek text. It is an authentic and trust 
worthy work ; the attacks made on it in these respects by Weingarten 
(1877) have been successfully refuted by Eichhorn and Mayer (1 
The genuineness of the Syntagma doctrlnae ad monachos 
dtdaaxaUaQ xpbq [jLovdZovraQ 1 ) , that uses tacitly but extensively the 
Didache ( 6), is open to doubt, likewise that of the De virginitate 
sive de ascesi (nspi xap&svtaQ TJTOL Tispl dffx^crstoQ^J. On the other 
hand, there is no reason to suspect the authenticity of several letters 
written to monks, among them one to the abbot Dracontius 9 , two to 
the abbot Orsisius or Orsiesius 10 , one to the monk Amunis 11 , and one 
to the monks of Egypt 12 . 

7. FESTAL LETTERS. Mention has already been made ( 40, 4) 
of the so-called festal letters of the bishops of Alexandria. The 
original text of those composed by Athanasius has been lost, apart 
from some fragments 13 . In 1847 a collection of these letters in 
Syriac was found in a monastery of the Nitrian desert; they were 
edited by Cureton in 1 848 H . The manuscript of Cureton was a 
mutilated one, and contained only fifteen entire Letters, of the years 
3 2 9348 (in 336 337 340 343 344 Athanasius issued no Festal 
Letters). These Letters have rendered valuable service to the modern 
historians of Arianism. Some fragments of the Saint s Festal Letters 
have lately been discovered in a Coptic version. 

TRINITY. The Christology of Athanasius is all in the phrase: 
God became man in order to deify men, i. e. in order to raise 
men to the rank of adoptive sons of God fodx apa avttpcoTTOQ tov 

1 Migne, PG., xxvii. 1347 135; c f. 1349 1362. 2 lb-> xxvii 1363 1390. 

Ib., xxvii. 1391 I4 o 4; w ith new fragments published by Mai, in 1844. 
Ib., xxvii. 14031404. s Ib ^ xxviii 283 _ 438 

Ib., xxvi. 835976. ^ Ib ; xxviH 835 _ 846> s Ib> xxviii 2 5I _ 282 . 

Ib., xxv. 523-534. 10 Ib-; xxvi 977-980. 11 Ib., xxvi. 11691176. 

lb., xxvi., 11851188. is Ib<> xxvi> I43I __ I 

Migne, PL., xxvi. i 35 i_ I444) j n a Latin vers ion. 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 2$ 9 

yiyovz #0* a.Ma tizbc, cbv oaTzpov yiyovzv avdpioTioc, Iva 
tt 07io rf cry j 1 . Inasmuch as we have a part in the Son, we have 
also, according the words of Holy Scripture, a part in God (aOToo yap 
TOO oloo fisri^ovreQ TOO fteoo fiere^etv Asfojusfla 2 , TOOTOO yap IJLS.TO.- 
Q TOO -xarpbc, fjtT/o t uzv, did TO TOO TraTpoQ zlvai "tdtov TOV 
Unless Christ were true God, He could not fulfil his office as 
Redeemer. If He were the divinity and the image of the Father only 
by participation fix /jte~o>jfftagj , and not essentially and by Himself, 
fe O.OTOO), He would not have been able to deify others, since Himself 
must first have been made like unto God. For it is not possible 
that anyone should share with another that which himself has only 
through participation, since that which he has is not his own pro 
perty but the property of him who gave it, and what he has received 
suffices only to satisfy his own need of grace. 4 If the Son were a 
creature, man would none the less remain mortal, because not united 
with God. For a creature cannot unite creatures with God, since himself 
must be united with God through another creature, and no member 
of creation can redeem creation, because itself is in need of redemption.)) 5 
It is quite impossible that there should be a middle something 
between the Creator and the creature. The thesis of Arius that in 
order to create the world God needed a middle being is very easily 
shown to be false. God is neither so impotent that He could not 
have created all things Himself, nor so arrogant that He would have 
disdained to create them 6 . Christ is therefore true God. God is cer 
tainly a unity fpovdgj, but in this unity is included a trinity (rptdg). 
There is one divinity in this trinity fula fteorqg IffTw iv Tptddi. 1 , did TO 
xal fjtiay elvat i TYJ dyia rptddt #loTrjTa) s . The very name Father sup 
poses the existence of a Son (itaripa ?dp oox av rig etiroi JUYJ 
uiou, o ok TOV #ov r:a.Tipa Asycov e jftbz, iv WJTW xal TOV vlbv 
The Son however is not from nothing, nor from the will of the Father, 
but from the substance of the Father (ix TYJQ oumaQ TOU xaTpoc, 11 / ), and 
this origin of the Son from the nature of the Father is essentially 
different from the origin of creatures from the will of the Father 
(oao> ouv TOO XTicr/jtaTOQ b DCOQ unlpxeiTat, TOGOOTOJ xal TYJQ ^ooAr^aeojc, 
TO XC/.TO-. <p6aw 12 J. The Son is co-eternal with the Father, and there 
was never a time when the Son was not (COQ $eou TOO del OVTOQ 
"tdtoQ aw oibc, d idiwQ brjipyzi 13 / The Son shares with the Father the 
entire plenitude of the divinity (TO icMjpaifJLa TTJQ TOO xaTpbc, fteoryroQ 
IffTt TO elyai TOO oloo xal o),oc, fteoq IGTIV b oioQ 14 ). Generation as 
predicated of the Son, does not mean the act of being made, but 
signifies participation in the entire substance of the Father (TO yap 

1 Or. c. Ar., i. 39. 2 Ib., i. 16. 3 De synodis, c. 51. 4 Ib. 

5 Or. c. Ar., ii. 69. Ib., ii. 24 25. 7 Ib., i. 18. 

8 Ep. ad lov., c. 4. <J Or. c. Ar., iii. 6. 10 De deer. Nic. syn., c. 30. 

11 Ib., c. 19. 12 Or. c. Ar., iii. 62. 13 Ib., i. 14. 14 Ib., iii. 6. 



oXa)Z {Jtsre/sff&at rbv dsbvlffou eeri U^stv on xac yswa 1 . They are two, 
Father and Son, but their nature is one, and that unity is indivisible 
and inseparable (860 fiiv stffw, on o narrjp xarfjp ion xal ouy o 
moQ ion* xa\ o mbq oioz ion xal ouy b wjrbq xarqp ion- fua 3k y 
coffTS duo /j.kv zlvat naripa %ui Mv, /Jtovdoa dk 

%at ao%toTov*). The Spirit of God shares the same divinity and the 
same power (TTJQ adr/jq ftsoryTOQ ion xat TTJQ adrrjc, ISOUOIOLQ*). The 
Source (r t T^rty 5 f the Hol y Spirit is the Son who is with the Father. 
The Holy Spirit is inseparable from the substance of the Father and 
the Son (TO dk aytov nvsu/jta od xriop.0. oodk ;ivov, a)J? fdtov xal 
ddtatpsTov TTJC, oocfiaQ TOU oiou xal TOLJ 7ra.Tp6c, Q ). He is of one and the 
same substance with the Father and the Son (TOO hoyou SVOQ OVTOC 
I diov xal roi> &BOU svbc, OVIOQ tdiov xat bfj.oo6oibv eon 1 ). There is, 
therefore, but one divinity and one God in three persons (p.ia yap 
xai SIQ &eo iv rioiv 


first complete edition of the original text of the writings of St. Athanasius 
appeared at Heidelberg, 1600 1601, ex officina Commeliniana, 2 vols. 
A second edition was brought out by J-. Piscator, Paris, 1627, 2 vols., and 
reprinted at Cologne in 1686. The best edition is that of the Benedic 
tines of St. Maur (Maurists), y. Lopin and B. de Montfaucon, Paris, 1698, 
3 vols. The reprint of this edition, at Padua, 1777, by N. A. Giustiniani, 
bishop of that city, has still a fourth volume, in which are included 
many hitherto unprinted writings of Athanasius, most of them discovered 
by de Montfaucon. The Giustiniani edition is reprinted with additions in 
Migne, PG., xxv xxviii, Paris, 1857. We owe to J. C. Thilo a selection 
of the dogmatico-polemical and historico-polemical writings of St. Athana 
sius reprinted from the Benedictine edition (Bibl. Patrum graec. dogm. 
edendam curavit Thilo, vol. i), Leipzig, 1853. Cf. F. IVallis , On some 
Mss. of the writings of St. Athanasius, in Journal of Theological Studies 
(1901 -1902), iii. 94 109 245 258. Lake, Some further notes on the 
Mss. of the writings of St. Athanasius, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1903 
to 1904), v. 108114. German translations of selected works were made 
by j. Fisch and P. A. Richard, Kempten, 1872 1875, 2 v l s - (Bibl. der 
Kirchenvater). There is an English version of the most important works 
of St. Athanasius by A. Robertson (J. H. Newman), in Select Library of 
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, New York, 1892, 
series II, iv. Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the 
Arians (Cardinal Newman], 2 vols. E. Fialon, St. Athanase, etude litteraire, 
Paris, 1877. K- Hoss, Studien liber das Schrifttum und die Theologie des 
Athanasius auf Grund einer Echtheitsuntersuchung von Athanasius contra 
gentes und De incarnatione , Freiburg, 1899. A. Stillcken , Athanasiana. 
Literar- und dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1899, in 
Texte und Untersuchungen, xix, new series, iv. 4. X. Le Bachelet, S. J., 
Dictionnaire de la Theologie Catholique, Paris, 1903, i. 21442178: 
St. Athanase. 

1 Or. c. Ar., i. 1 6. - Ib., iii. 4. s HO., iv> I 

De incarn. et c. Ar., c. 9. * Ib. * Tom. ad Ant,, c. 5. 

7 .Ep. ad Scrap., i. 27. De incarn. et c. Ar., c. 10. 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 26 1 


LOGETICAL WORKS. A separate edition of the Oratio de incarnatione Verbi was 
published by A. Robertson , London, 1882 1893. The authenticity of the 
two apologetic treatises was first called in question by V. Schultze, Geschichte 
des Untergangs des griechisch-romischen Heidentums, Jena, 1887, i. 118, 
afterwards decidedly denied by J. Draseke, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken 
(1893), Ixvi. 251 315. The Athanasian authorship was sustained by Hoss, 
1. c. (see above no. 9), pp. i 95, and Stulcken,\. c. (above no. 9), pp. i 23. 
For the Oratio contra gentes see the work of A. Lebentopulos , quoted in 
17, 3. - - DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL WORKS. Drdseke , in Zeitschr. fiir 
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1893), xxxvi. i, 290 315, Hoss, 1. c., pp. 123 127, 
and Stillcken, 1. c., pp. 50 58, call the fourth and last of the Orationes IV 
contra Arianos spurious. The Liber de Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto is also 
found as the last of twelve books de Trinitate among the writings of Vigilius, 
bishop of Tapsus (Migne, PL., Ixii. 237 334). T. H. Bentley brought out 
an edition of the De incarnatione Dei Verbi et contra Arianos , London, 
1887, 2. ed. , ib. , 1902. The authenticity of the Expositio fidei and of 
the Sermo maior de Jide has been denied by Hoss, 1. c., pp. 104 123, and 
by Stulcken, 1. c., pp. 23 40. The Interpretatio in symbolum (IpjxYjveia si? 
TO (jufij3oXov) is commented on with great learning by C. P. Caspari, in his 
Ungedruckte Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, 
Christiania, 1866, i. i 72, where there is also (i. 143 160) a critical 
edition of the Greek text (with an ancient Syriac version) of the profession 
of faith known as De incarnatione Dei Verbi (uspl TTJ? jap%u>7u> TOO Osou 
Ao-you); for its origin see Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen etc., Christiania, 
1879, PP- I02 ff- T ne Maurists edited the Symbolum Athanasianum, in the 
Latin original, four Greek versions and two Old-French versions (Migne, 
PG., xxviii. 1581 1596). Two other Greek versions are found in Cas 
pari, Ungedruckte Quellen, iii. 263 267. For a series of commentaries 
on the Athanasianum see A. E. Burn, The Athanasian Creed and its 
early Commentaries, Cambridge, 1896, in Texts and Studies, iv. i. Id., An 
Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum, London, 1899. G. D. W. 
Omrnaney , A critical dissertation on the Athanasian Creed, its original 
language, date, authorship, titles,, text, reception and use, Oxford, 1897. 
G. Morin, Le symbole d Athanase et son premier temoin Cesaire d Arles, in 
Revue Benedictine (1901), xviii. 338 363. A. E. Burn, On Eusebius of 
Vercelli, in Journal of Theological Studies (1900), i. 592 599. F. N. Oxenham, 
The Athanasian Creed, London, 1902. K. Kiinstle, Antipriscilliana, Frei 
burg, 1905. On the Two Books against Apollinaris see }-. Drdseke, 
Gesammelte Patristische Untersuch., Altona, 1889, pp. 169 207, also 
StUlcken, 1. c. (see above, no. 9), pp. 70 75. The spurious Doctrina ad 
Antiochum ducem (Migne , PG., xxviii. 555 590), noteworthy for its reference 
to the Shepherd of Hermas, was edited anew by W. Dindorf, Athanasii 
Alexandrini praecepta ad Antiochum. Ad codices duos recensuit G. D., 
Leipzig, 1857. In this work (pp. vi xii and 63 77) Dindorf reprinted 
from a Cod. Guelpherbytanus (saec. x.) a copious varietas lectionis relative to 
the spurious Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem (Migne, PG., xxviii. 597 708), 
a compilation from ancient works, among them some of Athanasius, made 
by various utterly unknown hands. For the seven Dialogues on the Trinity 
(Migne, PG. , xxviii. 1115 1338: Dialogi v de Trinitate and Dialogi ii 
contra Macedonianos] and the Confutations quarumdam propositionum (Ib., 
xxviii. 1337 1394) see 78, 8. F. Wallis, On some Mss. of the writings 
of St. Athanasius, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 245 258. 

TINUED). -- Historico- Polemical writings. For a refutation of some doubts 


concerning the authenticity of the Historia Arianorum ad monacJios see 
A. Eichhorn, Athanasii de vita ascetica testimonia collecta, Halle, 1886, 
PP- 57 62. Exegetical writings. The genuineness of the second Psalm- 
commentary (Migne, PG., xxvii. 649 1344) was denied by H. Strdter, Die 
Erlosungslehre des hi. Athanasius, Freiburg, 1894, pp. 29 35, and by 
M. Faulhaber, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1901), Ixxxiii. 218 232. The latter 
attributes it to Hesychius of Jerusalem (79, 3), and corroborates the thesis 
of G. Mercati , in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e 
Testi v), Rome, 1901, pp. 144 179: I1 commentario di Esichio Gero- 
solimitano sui salmi. Cardinal Mai published (Nova Patrum BibL, Rome, 
1844, ii, part 2) under the name of Athanasius In Lucac evangelium com- 
mentariorum excerpta (pp. 567 582), and fragmenta alia (pp. 583 584); 
the latter are reprinted in Migne, PG., xxvi. 1291 -1294, though I have 
sought there in vain for the excerpta. Pitra , Analecta sacra et classica 
(1888), part i , made known under the name of Athanasius some frag 
ments ex commentario in Psalmos (pp. 3 20) and ex commentario in Job 
(pp. 21 26). On the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae see Charteris } Canoni- 
city, Edinburgh, 1880; Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, 
Erlangen, 1890, ii. i, 302 318; cf. E. Klostermann, Analecta zur Septua- 
ginta, Hexapla und Patristik, Leipzig, 1895, pp. 75 ff. -- Ascetic writ 
ings. A handy edition of the Vita S. Antonii was brought out by A. F. 
Maunoury , Paris, 1887 and 1890. The authenticity and credibility of 
this work were attacked by H. Weingarten, Der Ursprung des Monch- 
tums im nachconstantinischen Zeitalter, Gotha, 1877. Weingarten was 
refuted by A. Eichhorn, Athanasii de vita ascetica testimonia collecta 
(Inaug.-Diss.) , Halle, 1886, and by J. Mayer, in Der Katholik (1886), i. 
495 5 l6 619636; ii. 72 86 173 193. Dom Cuthbert Butler, The 
Lausiac History of Palladius, i, in Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1898, 
vi. i, 215 228. The Latin version of Evagrius may also be found in 
the Bollandists, in the Acta SS. Jan., Antwerp, 1643, ii. 120 141. In his 
Acta martyrum et sanctorum, Paris, 1895, v. 1 121, Bedjan made known 
an ancient Syriac version of the work ; cf. Fr. Schulthess, Probe einer sy- 
rischen Version der Vita S. Antonii (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1894. P. Batiffol 
edited anew (and pronounced spurious) the Syntagma doctrinae ad mon- 
achos, in Studia patristica, Paris, 1890, ii. 117160. Id., On the De 
virginitate seu de ascesi, in Romische Quartalschr. ftir christl. Altertums- 

kunde u. f. Kirchengesch. (1893), vii. 275 286. - - The Festal Letters. 

The Festal Letters of Athanasius, discovered in an ancient Syriac version, 
and edited by W. Cureton , London, 1848. The Syriac text is reprinted, 
with a Latin version, in Mai, Nova Patrum BibL, Rome, 1853, vi, part i 
(Migne, PG. , xxvi. 1351 1444). A German translation of the Festal 
Letters was made by F. Larsow , Die Festbriefe des hi. Athanasius, Bi- 
schofs von Alexandria, Leipzig, 1852. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. 
Kanons, Erlangen, 1890, ii. i, 203212: Der Osterfest-Brief des Atha 
nasius vom Jahre 367 (Migne, ^G., xxvi. 14351440). Id. (apropos of this 
Festal Letter), Athanasius und der Bibelkanon, Leipzig, 1901. Concerning 
some Coptic fragments of the same letter and its biblical canon cf. C. Schmidt, 
in Nachrichten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. 
Kl. (1898), pp. 167 203; Id. , Ein neues Fragment des Osterfest-Briefes 
des Athanasius vom Jahre 367, ib., 1901. For Coptic fragments of other 
Festal Letters see H. Achelis, in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1899), pp. 663 f. 
W Riedel and W. E. Crum , The Canons of Athanasius of Alexandria. 
1 he Arabic and Coptic Versions edited and translated (Text and Translation 
Society), London, 1904. Other spurious works. The Fides Nicaena (Migne, 
PG., xxviii. 1637 1644) was edited again by P. Batiffol, in Didascalia 

63. ST. ATHANASIUS. 263 

cccxviii Patrum pseudepigrapha, e graecis codicibus recensuit P. Batiffol, 
Coptico contulit H. Hyvernat, Paris, 1887. E. Rcvillout had already made 
known two Coptic texts of this small work. For more explicit details see 
A. Eichhorn, in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1887), pp. 569 571. The Tractatus 
S. Athanasii de ratione paschae (Migne, PG., xxviii. 1605 1610), extant in 
Latin only, is a recasting of the De pascha by Martin of Bracara ( 119, i). 
Cf. F. Piper, tiber den Verfasser der dem Athanasius beigelegten Schrift 
De paschate, Berlin, 1862. For the Historia imaginis Berytensis (Ib., xxviii. 
797 824) in two Greek and two Latin recensions, see Wildt, in Kirchen- 
lexikon (1882), 2. ed., i. 15431547; v. DobscJmtz, Christusbilder, Leipzig, 
1899, pp. 280 ff. H. E. Taiezi published at Venice (1899) an ancient 
Armenian translation of Athanasiana, treatises, sermons, letters and spurious 
matter ; also some fragments unknown in the Greek, among them a discourse 
that is also extant in Coptic (F. Rossi, I papiri copti del Museo Egiziano 
de Tarmo, Tarmo, 1888, ii. i). There is in Taiezi a fragment of the letter 
of Athanasius to his disciple and successor Timotheos ; cf. 63 , 3 
and 79, 4. 

12. WORKS ON ATHANASIUS. To the ancient authorities for the life 
of the Saint we may now add some fragments of a Coptic eulogium edited 
by O. v. Lemm , Koptische Fragmente zur Patriarchengeschichte Alexan- 
driens, Petersburg, 1888. Cf. J. A. Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und die 
Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus, Mainz, 1827, 
2. vols., 2. ed. 1844. Fr. Bohringer, Die griechischen Vater des 3. und 
4. Jahrhunderts. 2. Halfte: Athanasius und Arius (Die Kirche Christi und ihre 
Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, vol. i., sect. 2., half 2., 
ed. 2.), Stuttgart, 1874. G. Kriiger, Die Bedeutung des Athanasius, in Jahrb. 
f. protest. Theol. (1890), xvi. 337 356. Contributions to the chronology 
of the life of Athanasius were made by A, v. Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, 
herausgegeben von Fr. Riihl, Leipzig, 1890, ii. 427 449. H. Voigt, Die 
Lehre des Athanasius von Alexandrien oder die kirchliche Dogmatik des 
4. Jahrhunderts auf Grund der biblischen Lehre vom Logos, Bremen, 1861. 
C/i. Vernet, Essai sur la doctrine christologique d Athanase-le-Grand (These), 
Geneve, 1879. L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des hi. Athanasius, Miinchen, 
1880. G. Voisin, La doctrine christologique de Saint Athanase, in Revue 
d histoire ecclesiastique (1900), i. 226 248. G. A. Pell, Die Lehre des 
hi. Athanasius von der Siinde und Erlosung, Passau, 1888. H. Strdter, Die 
Erlosungslehre des hi. Athanasius, Freiburg, 1894. K. Bornhauser , Die 
Vergotterungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus, Giitersloh, 
1903. F. Lauchert , Die Lehre des hi. Athanasius d. Gr., Leipzig, 1895. 
H. Lietzmann, Chronologic der ersten und zweiten Verbannung des Atha 
nasius, in Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. (1901), xliv. 380 390. Gwatkin, 
Studies on Arianism, Cambridge, 1900. 

13. ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA. - - Two letters about the heresy of 
Arius from the pen of this bishop of Alexandria (see no. i) are extant, 
both written before the Council of Nicsea, one to Alexander, bishop of 
Constantinople, and the other to all the bishops (Migne, PG. , xviii. 547 
to 582). It is clear from these letters that Alexander grasped at once the 
true significance of the teaching of Arius. He does not use the term 
6[ioo6<noc, but he does call the Blessed Virgin 73 fhoroxo? (Ep. i., c. 12). 
Some Greek fragments current under his name are collected in Migne, 
PG., xviii. 581 584, also a Syriac Sermo de anima et corpore deque pas- 
stone Domini (ib. , 585 608, Syriac and Latin) and several short Syriac 
fragments edited by Martin, in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 196 200 430 to 
434 (Syriac and Latin). For the Syriac sermon and the Syriac fragments 
cf. G. Kriiger, in Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol. (1888), xxxi. 434 448; 


C. Thomas, Melito von Sardes, Osnabriick, 1893, pp. 4051. See also 

i9> 3- 

14. POPES JULIUS i. AND LiBERius. Julius I. (33? 35 2 ) wa the sole 
support in troublous times of the bishops persecuted for their opposition 
to Arianism (see no. i). We possess two Greek letters from his hand: Ad 
Antiochenos and Ad Alexandrines (Migne, PL., viii. 897 912). Other writ 
ings current under his name are Apollinarist forgeries ( 61, 4), among 
them the four letters in Greek, Apollinarist or Monophysite in tendency, in 
Migne, PG., viii. 873877 929936 953961; also m P. A. de Lagarde, 
Titi Bostreni quae ex opere contra Manichaeos edito in cod. Hamburg, 
servata sunt graece, Berlin, 1859, pp. 114124. A Syriac version of 
these letters is in de Lagarde, Analecta syriaca, Leipzig and London, 
1858, pp. 67 79, and in J. Fr. A. Veith, Epistolae nonnullae sub lulii I 
nomine divulgatae (Diss. inaug.), Breslau, 1862. The seven Syriac frag 
ments attributed to Julius I. are also in G. Mosinger, Monumenta Syriaca, 
Innsbruck, 1878, ii. i 5. - - There are extant under the name of Pope 
Liberius (352 366) several letters in Latin and a letter in Greek Ad uni- 
versos orientis orthodoxos episcopos (Migne, PL., viii. 1349 1358 1372 
to 1373 1381 1386); cf.Jafft, Regesta Pontificum Rom., 2. ed., Leipzig, 
1885, i. n. 208 216 223 228. Saint Ambrose (De virginibus, iii. i 3) 
has handed down the discourse pronounced by Liberius on the occasion 
of the religious consecration of Marcellina, the sister of Ambrose. Theo- 
doret (Hist, eccl., ii. 13) has saved for us the declarations in which Li 
berius resisted at Milan (355) the demands of the emperor Constantius. It 
is probable that Liberius subscribed the third Sirmian formula and thereby 
sacrificed, not orthodoxy, but the term ojAoouaios ; cf. H. Grisar, in Kirchen- 
lexikon, 2. ed. , 1891, vii. 19511959. The four Latin letters that are 
quoted as proof of the pope s lapse into Arianism are now recognized as 
forgeries (Migne, PL., viii. 13651372 1395); cf. also Jaffe, 1. c., n. 217 
to 219 and 207; the same is true of the Greek letter to Athanasius and 
the reply of the latter (Migne, PL., viii. 1395 1440, and PG., xxviii. 1441 
to 1446; Jafft, n. 229), likewise of other writings ascribed at different 
times to Liberius (Jaffe, n. 222 224247). L. de Feis, Storia di Liberio 
papa e dello scisma dei Semiariani, Rome, 1894. 

64. The representatives of Egyptian Monachism. 

I. SAINT ANTHONY. Saint Anthony the Great, who found his 
first biographer in St. Athanasius ( 63, 6), passes for the founder 
of the cenobitic life. He died in 356, at the age of one hundred 
and five, on Mount Colzim near the Red Sea. St. Athanasius in 
serted in his Vita Antonii (cc. 16 43) a long discourse of the 
Saint to his monks, translated from Egyptian (Coptic). St. Jerome 1 
was acquainted with seven letters apostolici sensus sermonisque ad 
dressed by Anthony to several monasteries, and translated from 
Egyptian into Greek; the most important (praecipua est) was a letter 
ad Arsenoitas. There are grave difficulties against the identification 
of these letters with the cpistolae septcm S. Antonii still current in 
Latin. Discourses and thoughts of this father of the monks were 
set down in writing by some of his disciples. Some ascetical works 
have been falsely attributed to him. 

1 De viris ill., c. 88. 


There are some Coptic fragments of letters, under the name of An 
thony, Ad S. Theodorum and Ad S. Athanasium, in y. A. Mingarelli, 
Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae Venetiis in bibliotheca Naniana asservatae, 
Bologna, 1785, pp. cxcviii cciii. A short letter to Theodortis, translated from 
the Egyptian, in Epistola Ammonis episc. ad Theophilum papam Alexandriae, 
is found in the Bollandists, in the Acta SS. Mai, iii. 70 (p. 355, in Latin), 
and is reprinted in Migne, PG., xl. 1065. Migne (1. c., 961 1100) contains 
also the following Latin writings attributed to Saint Anthony: Sermo de 
vanitate mundi et de resurrectione mortuorum, Sermones XX ad filios suos 
monachos, Epistolae VII ex Graeco Latine redditae interprete Valerio de 
Sarasio, Epistolae XX ex Arabico Latini iuris factae ab Abrahamo Ecchellensi 
Maronita e Libano, Regulae ac praecepta ad filios suos monachos, Spiri- 
tualia documenta, Admonitiones et documenta varia, Sententiarum quarum- 
dam S. Antonii expositio facta a quodam sene, Interrogationes quaedam a 
diversis S. Antonio factae eiusque ad easdem responsiones, Dicta quaedam 
S. Antonii. The seven letters have been also published (Latin text) by 
A. Erdinger , Innsbruck, 1871. A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine-le-Grand, 
patriarche des cenobites, Tours, 1890. B. Contzen, Die Regel des 
hi. Antonius (Progr.), Metten, 1896. y. Besse, Diet, de la Theologie Catho- 
lique, Paris, 1903, i. 1441 1443: St. Antoine. 

2. ST. PACHOMIUS. - - If Anthony was the father of the monks, 
his disciple Pachomius was their first legislator. The scene of his life 
and labors was Tabennesus, north of Thebes, on the right bank of 
the Nile, where the monastic colony grew until it counted thousands 
of members. He died in 345 according to Griitzmacher, in 346 
(May 9.) according to Ladeuze. His rule was probably the out 
growth of time and was written originally in Coptic. Ladeuze thinks 
that the short Greek text in Palladius 1 is by no means the oldest 
form of the rule; the Latin text in Saint Jerome 2 is a translation 
from the Greek and represents the condition of the rule about the 
year 400. There are added to this version some exhortations and 
several letters of Pachomius 3 . 

The historical authorities for the life and labors of Pachomius are : a 
Greek biography of the Saint and of his disciple Theodoras, some Coptic 
and Arabic documents published by E. Amilineau in 1889 and 1895 , a 
Syriac History of Pachomius edited by P. Bedjan in 1895, and other docu 
ments; cf. G. Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das alteste Klosterleben, Frei 
burg, 1895; P- Ladeuze, Etude sur la cenobitisme Pakhomien pendant le 
IV e siecle et la premiere moitie du V e , Paris, 1898. The oldest Life of 
Pachomius was written in Greek, soon after 386 according to Ladeuze, and 
in the form in which it appears in the Bollandists, in the Acta SS. Mai., 
iii. 25 ff. There is a Greek recension of Pachomius s rule in Palladius 
(1. c.), also in Sozomenus, Hist. eccl. , iii. 14. A longer Greek recension 
(50 rules) is found in Acta SS. Mai., iii. 62 63 (Latin pp. 346347), and 
in Migne, PG., xl. 947952. A still longer Greek recension (60 rules) was 
published by Pitra , Analecta sacra et classica (1888), i. 113 115. The 
Latin text in St. Jerome (1. c.) includes as many as 194 rules. For Ethiopic 
Regulae Pachomii cf. A. Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica, Leipzig, 1866, 

1 Historia Lausiaca, c. 38. - Migne, PL., xxiii. 61 86. 

3 Ib., xxiii. 85 99. 


pp ^ 7 _6 9 - this text has been translated into German by E. Konig, in 
Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1878), li. 323 337. Some Coptic sermons 
attributed to Pachomius were published by E. Amelineau, with a French 
version, in the Memoires publics par les membres de la mission archeo- 
logique franchise au Caire (1895), iv. 2, 483 if. E. Preuschen 3 Monchtum 
und Serapiskult, Giessen, 1903. On St. Pachomius and his monks see 
M. Heimbuchcr, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche, 
Paderborn, 1896, i. 36 ff. 

the successor of Pachomius in the government of his monastic com 
munity, survived him but a few days. His place was filled by 
Orsisius or Orsiesius ( 63, 6), who chose as his assistant the monk 
Theodorus. The latter died in 368 ; the death of Orsisius took place 
about 380. Jerome 1 has added to the letters of Pachomius ( 64, 2) 
a brief letter of Theodorus Ad omnia monasteria de pascha. Gen- 
nadius 2 knew several letters of Theodorus. Orsisius wrote a Doc- 
trina de institutionc monachorum* that won warm praise from Gen- 
nadius 4 ; it was probably written in Coptic , but is known to us 
only in a Latin version which is very probably the work of Saint 
Jerome. A Libellus de sex cogitationibus sanctorum 5 in Latin goes 
under the name of Orsisius. 

On Orsisius and Theodorus the reader may consult the works of Griitz- 
macher and Ladeuze quoted above (no. 2). With the Coptic Sermons 
of Pachomius, Amelineau published (1. c.) Coptic Sermons of Theodorus 
and Coptic Letters of Orsisius, with a French version. 

- Rufinus 6 and Palladius 7 dwell with special pleasure on the wonder 
ful deeds of Macarius the Egyptian and Macarius the Alexandrine. 
The former was born about the year 300, and when about thirty 
years of age, retired to the solitude of Scete, where he dwelt for 
sixty years. At the end of his first decade in the desert he was 
ordained priest, and because of his rapid progress in virtue was 
soon known as the aged youth , xaidapiofipcov. His sanctity was 
made evident by remarkable gifts of prophecy and by power over the 
demons and by the healing of the sick. These gifts were possessed 
in a still higher degree by his somewhat younger contemporary, 
Macarius of Alexandria. He was also a priest and had charge of 
a monastery (or the monasteries?) in the Nitrian desert, then the 
principal centre of Egyptian monasticism. He died about 395, and 
was henceforth known as the Alexandrine 8 or also the town s 
man 9 from the place of his birth and to distinguish him from his 

1 Migne, PL., xxiii. 99 100. De viris ill., c. 8. 

3 Migne, PG., xl. 869894. 4 De viris ill., c. 9. 

5 Migne, PG., xl. 895896. 6 Vitae Patrum, cc. 28 29. 

7 Hist. Lausiaca, c. 19 20. 8 Socr. t Hist., iv. 23. 

n Sozom., Hist, eccl., iii. 14. 


illustrious namesake who was born in Upper Egypt. It is only in our 
own time that he came to be known as Macarius Junior. In So- 
zomen 1 and Nicephorus Callistus 2 it is another Egyptian monk 3 who 
is called the younger (b vioq). The ancient biographers are silent 
about any writings of the two Macarii. Gennadius 4 mentions only one 
didactic letter of the celebrated Egyptian monk Macarius to younger 
monks: Macarius monachus ille Aegyptius. . . . unam tanttim ad 
iuniores professionis suae scripsit epistolam . At a later date we 
meet with a great number of works attributed to one or other of 
these holy men. Fifty spiritual homilies i. e. dealing with the 
spiritual life, bear the name of Macarius the Egyptian (bfidiat 7ivB>jfj.a- 
Tixat 5 }, also an Epistola magna et periitilis^ first edited by Floss 
(1850). The homilies, the authenticity of which we have no reason to 
suspect, were much admired at a later period ; their author ranks as 
a foremost representative of the earliest ecclesiastical mysticism. The 
following treatises : De custodia cordis, De perfectione in spiritu, De 
oratione, De patientia et discretions, De elevatione mentis, De charitate, 
De libertate mentis 1 , published by Possinus (1683) as works of 
Macarius the Egyptian, are really excerpts from the Spiritual homilies , 
made probably in the tenth century by Simeon Logotheta. There 
is also current under the name of Macarius an apparently spurious 
Sermo de exitu animae iustorum et peccatorum, qnomodo separantur 
a cor pore et in quo statu manent*. Several short collections of 
sentences (apophthegmata)^ are usually attributed to Macarius the 
Egyptian abbot . A short prayer 10 , three Latin letters 11 and a 
Latin Regula ad monachos 12 , are ascribed in the manuscripts to Saint 
Macarius . A Latin discourse that bears the name of Macarius the 
Alexandrine is probably spurious. 

In Migne (PG. ; xxxiv) several Dissertationes are added to the works 
described in the preceding paragraph, among them the Quaestiones cri- 
ticae et historicae de Macariorum Aegyptii et Alexandrini vitis, in Floss, 
Macarii Aegyptii epistolae, homiliarum loci, preces, primus edidit FL, 
Cologne, 1850, pp. i 1 88. M. Jocham published (Sulzbach, 1839, 2 vols.) 
a German translation of the works of St. Macarius the Great. Another 
translation was published at Kempten, 1878 (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater). 
The spiritual doctrine of Macarius is discussed by Th. Forster, Makarius 
von Agypten, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. (1873), xviii. 439 501. The 
two fragments which Floss published at Bonn (Universitatsprogramm zum 
3. Aug. 1866) under the name of Macarius (the Egyptian) belong, as was 
pointed out by Gildcmcister, to a work printed among the writings of Saint 
Ephraem, in the Greek section of the Roman edition of Kphnem (1732 

1 Ib., vi. 29. 2 Hist, eccl., xi. 35. 3 Pallad., Hist. Laus., c. 17. 

4 De viris ill., c. 10. 5 Migne, PG., xxxiv. 449 822. 

6 Ib., xxxiv. 409442. 7 Ib., xxxiv. 821 968. 

8 Ib., xxxiv. 385 392. Ib., xxxiv. 229 264. 

10 Ib., xxxiv. 445 448. n Ib., xxxiv. 405410 441446. 

12 Ib. xxxiv. 967 970. 


to 1746) i. 4iB 6iF). 7. Gildemeister, Uber die an der k. preuss. 
Universitat Bonn entdeckten neuen Fragmente des Makarius, Leipzig, 1866. 
H. J Floss, T. Gildemeister und das Bonner Universitatsprpgramm zum 
/Aug 1 866," Freiburg, 1867. J. Gildemeister, Uber die in Bonn ent 
deckten neuen Fragmente des Makarius, zweites Wort, Elberfeld, 1867. 
R. Lobe, Makarius von Agypten, in Kirchl. Jahrb. fur das Herzogtum 
Sachsen-Altenburg (1900), vi i, 37 78. 

5. ST. ISATAS. An abbot Isaias, who lived according to the 

common opinion in the fourth century and in the desert of Scete, is 
held to be the author of twenty-nine Orationes the text of which has 
reached us only in a Latin version 1 ; some fragments of the Greek 
text are in the Capitula de religiosa exercitatione et quiete 2 . Sixty- 
eight Praecepta sen consilia posita tironibus in monachatu 3 are extant 
only in Latin. Some fragments are found in Migne 4 . 

According to G. Krilger (Ahrens und Kriiger } Die sog. Kirchen- 
geschichte des Zacharias Rhetor, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 385 f.), the author 
of the above-mentioned works was the ascetic Isaias who died between 485 
and 490, and found a biographer in the rhetorician Zacharias ( 103, 2). 

65. Anti-Manichsean writers. 

I. HEGEMONIUS. Towards the end of the third century Mani- 
chaeism began to make its way from Persia into the Greco-Roman 
world and to popularize its system of two eternal principles, one 
good the other evil, and of the origin of the works of creation from a 
commingling of light and darkness. The literary opposition of the 
Christians began, apparently, with the author of the Acta disputationis 
Archelai cpiscopi Mesopotamiae et Manetis haeresiarchae, a work 
that has reached us only in an ancient Latin translation made from a 
Greek text. This Greek text some fragments of which are extant, 
probably represent its primitive form; others maintain that it was 
originally written in Syriac ; at all events it belongs to the first half 
of the fourth century. According to the trustworthy evidence of 
Heraclian of Chalcedon 5 the author was a certain Hegemonius. 
The work contains the narrative of a dispute between Archelaus, 
bishop of Charchar (probably Carrhae-Harran) in Mesopotamia, and 
the founder of Manichseism, held in presence of learned arbiters who 
decided in favor of Archelaus; a second dispute likewise ended in 
a splendid victory for the bishop. These disputes are doubtlessly 
imaginary events, a literary form invented for the purpose of ex 
hibiting the arguments of the author against Manichaeism. There is 
no evidence for the historical reality of this bishop Archelaus or of 
any of the personages brought forward, with the sole exception of 
Mani. The work is nevertheless a valuable source of information 

1 Migne, PG., xl. 1105 1206. 2 Ib., xl. 1205 1212. 

J Migne, PL., ciii. 427 434. * Migne, PG., xl. 1211 1214. 

5 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 85. 


to historians and dogmatic theologians; the writer had before him 
genuine Manichaean writings parts of which he quotes, and his de 
scription of the Manichrean system is the common source of all later 
Greek and Latin works on that subject. 

A complete Latin text of the Acta disputationis was first edited by 
L. A. Zacagni , Collectanea monumentorum veterum eccles. gr. ac lat, 
Rome, 1698, pp. i 105 ; often reprinted since, as e. g. in Migne, PG., x. 
1405 1528. H. v. Zittwitz, Acta disputationis Archelai et Manetis, unter- 
sucht, in Zeitschr. f. die hist. Theol. (1873), xliii. 467 528. Ad. Oblasinski, 
Acta disputationis Archelai et Manetis (Diss. inaug.), Leipzig, 1874. 
K. Kessler , Mani, Berlin, 1889, i. 87 171: Sprache und Komposition 
der Acta Archelai. Th. Noldeke, in Zeitschr. der deutschen Morgenland. 
Gesellschaft (1889), xliii. 537 541, contested Kessler s theory of a Syriac 
original. C. Salemann, Ein Bruchstiick manichaischen Schrifttums im asia- 
tischen Museum, in Memoires de 1 Acad. imp. des sciences de St. Peters- 
bourg, Leipzig, 1904. 

2. ALEXANDER OF LYCOPOLIS. - - In the first half of the fourth 
century a certain Alexander Lycopolites, from Lycopolis in the The- 
bais, wrote a work against the Manichseans. Notwithstanding its 
brevity and its rude and obscure diction it has always been esteemed 
as helpful evidence to the character of Manichaean teaching. Photius 1 
calls him a bishop of Lycopolis; he was probably neither a bishop 
nor a Christian, but a heathen and a Platonist. 

The work of Alexander is edited by Fr. Combefis, Bibl. Graec. Patr. 
auctarium novissimum, Paris, 1672, ii. 3 21, and reprinted in Migne, 
PG., xviii. 409 448. A. Brinkmann has published a very accurate edition 
of the text, Leipzig, 1895; on the personality and date of this writer 
see Brinkmann in his edition, Praef., pp. xii ff. 

3. ST. SERAPION OF THMUIS. According to St. Jerome 2 Serapion, 
bishop of Thmuis in Lower Egypt and a faithful companion of Atha- 
nasius in his conflicts and sufferings who for his learning was known 
as Scholasticus (died after 362), wrote Adversum Manichaeum egregium 
librum ct de Psalmorum titulis a Hum et ad diversos utiles epistolas. 
Two of these letters were published by Cardinal Mai : one a short con 
solatory letter to the bishop Eudoxius, the other a letter of encourage 
ment to some monks of Alexandria. Wobbermin discovered and edited 
a dogmatic letter on the Father and the Son fas pi -arpoq xai oloTj). 
The work of Serapion on the titles of the Psalms seems to have 
perished. His treatise against the Manichseans is extant, and fragments 
of it have been reprinted from time to time. We owe to Brinkmann 
(1894) the restoration of the original form of the work. In this shape 
it is really an excellent composition ; the most important propositions 
of Manichaeism are refuted not only with vigor but with much spirit 
and acumen. 

1 Contra Manichaeos, i. n. ~ De viris ill., c. 99. 



The work of Serapion against the Manichseans and the similar work 
of Titus of Bostra (see no. 4) have reached us through one (Genoese) 
manuscript of the eleventh century; cf. Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica 
(1888), part i, pp. 4446. There is a copy of this codex in the City 
Library of Hamburg; cf. de Lagarde, Titi Bostreni quae ex opere contra 
Manichaeos edito in codice Hamburgensi servata sunt graece, e recogn. 
P. A. de L., Berlin, 1859, iii. By reason of the blundering insertion of a 
4 to leaf in this codex, and consequently in the copy, three fourths of the 
work of Serapion were made to pass as the production of Titus. De Lagarde 
(1. c.) was the first to separate this interpolation from the book of the bishop 
of Bostra, while Brinkmann was the first to recognize this part as belonging 
to the work of Serapion (Sitzungsberichte der k. preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. 
zu Berlin, 1894, pp. 479 491). Previously J. Drasekc (Gesammelte Patrist. 
Untersuchungen, Altona and Leipzig, 1889, pp. i 24) fancied he saw in 
this interpolated text the remnants of a work by the Macedonian George of 
Laodicea ( 61, 2). J. Basnage, Thesaurus monumentorum eccl. et hist., 
Antwerp, 1725, i. 35 55, edited the work from the Hamburg manuscript, 
and his edition was reprinted in Migne , PG. ; xl. 899 924. We owe to 
Pitra, 1. c., pp. 48 49 , a collation of this manuscript with the Genoese 
codex. The two letters edited by Mai (see no. 3) are reprinted in Migne, 
PG., xl. 923 942. The dogmatic letter and thirty liturgical prayers, the 
first and fifteenth of which are the work of Serapion, were edited by 
G. Wobbermin, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1898, xvii, new 
series, ii. 3b. This Euchologium was also studied by P. Drews, in Zeit- 
schrift f. Kirchengeschichte (1900), xx. 291328 415441. A new edition 
was published by F. E. Brightman , in Journal of Theological Studies 
(18991900), i. 88 113 247 277. It is given with a Latin translation 
in Funk, Didascalia, ii. (Testimonia) 158 195. There are a few words 
from the twenty- third letter of Saint Serapion , in Pitra, Analecta sacra 
(1884), ii. Proleg. XL; Analecta sacra et classica (1888), part i, p. 47. 
In .Pitra, Analecta sacra (1883), iv. 214215 443444, P. Martin 
published three brief Syriac fragments attributed to Serapion, ex homilia 
de virginitate, ex epistola ad episcopos confessores and a sentence 

4. TITUS OF BOSTRA. Titus , bishop of Bostra in Arabia 

(Hauran), and well-known for his relations with Julian the Apostate, 
(t ca - 374) 1 , was a younger contemporary of Serapion of Thmuis. 
He has left us a work in four books against the Manichseans, that 
became deservedly famous at a later date. The first two books are 
a philosophico-dialectic attack on the Manichaean dualism, while 
in the other two books he uses biblico-theological arguments. The 
work has a special historical value by reason of the numerous literal 
quotations from Manichaean writings. The only extant codex of the 
Greek text contains but the first two books and a small portion of 
the third. The work has reached us entire in a Syriac version, 
published (1859) by de Lagarde from a manuscript of the year 411. 
Some homily-like fragments of a commentary on St. Luke have 
also been preserved. The genuineness of an Oratio in ranws pal 
mar um is very doubtful. 

1 Sozom., Hist. eccl. v. 15. 


For the manuscript-tradition of the Greek text of the work against 
the Manichaeans see no. 3. All former editions were made from the Ham 
burg copy: Basnage , 1. c., i. 56 162; Migne , PG., xviii. 1069 1264; 
de Lagarde, 1. c. Pitra printed a collation of the Genoese manuscript, in 
Analecta sacra et classica (1888), part, i, pp. 50 63. With the aid of 
the Syriac version Lagarde proved (1. c., iii.) that a long section (from the 
work of Serapion against the Manichees) had erroneously been inserted in 
the first book of the work of Titus: Titi Bostreni contra Manichaeos libri 
quatuor syriace, P. A. de Lagarde ed., Berlin, 1859. The commentary on the 
Gospel of Saint Luke, edited as a work of Titus by Fronto Ducasus in 1624 
(reprinted in Magna Bibl. vet. Patr., Paris, 1644, xiii. 762 836) is only 
a Catena-like compilation that cannot be of an earlier date than the sixth 
century. The fragments of the genuine commentary were edited by J. Sicken- 
berger, Leipzig, 1901, in Texte und Untersuchungen , new series, vi. i. 
Id., Titus von Bostra, Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 
1900; Uber griechische Evangelienkommentare, in Biblische Zeitschrift 
(1903), i. 182 193. The Oratio in ramos palmarum is in Migne, 1. c., 
1263 1278. For a Syriac fragment of a sermon on the Epiphany attributed 
to Titus of Bostra see de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uber- 
setzung der Proverbien, Leipzig, 1863, pp. 94 95. 

5. OTHER ANTI-MANICHyAN WRITERS. - - To this period belong also 

the anti-Manichaean writers Basil the Great ( 67, 4), Didymus the Blind 
( 70, 2 ; cf. 69, n), and Diodorus of Tarsus ( 72, 2). 

66. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. 

i. HIS LIFE. -- The birthplace of St. Cyril (ca. 315) is unknown; 
he was educated at Jerusalem. About 345 he was ordained priest 
by Maximus II., bishop of Jerusalem, and in that capacity delivered 
in 347 or 348 his famous catechetical instructions to the candidates 
for baptism and the neophytes. After the death of St. Maximus he 
was chosen (350 or 351) to succeed him. His latest biographer 
Mader (1891) contends that Cyril was already a bishop in 347 or 348, 
and as such delivered the Catechetical discourses in 348. For a long 
time Cyril displayed an attitude of reserve towards the contemporary 
dogmatic controversies. In his Catecheses he frequently opposes 
Arianism, but without speaking of Arius or the Arians, and without 
once mentioning the brwoumoc; although he decidedly taught the 
consubstantiality of Father and Son. Nevertheless, he was later on the 
object of much hostility and persecution on the part of the Arians. 
They began with a conflict that arose between Cyril and Acacius, 
the Arian bishop of C?esarea ( 61, i) apropos of the seventh canon 
of the Council of Nicaea which acknowledged in the bishop of 
Jerusalem a primacy of honor, without detriment of the metropolitan 
rights of C?esarea. It was really the confessor and defender of the 
Nicene faith whom the Arians attacked on this occasion. He was 
three times expelled from his see ; the third exile lasted eleven years 
(367 378). In 381 he assisted at the (Second Ecumenical) Council 
of Constantinople. It is generally believed that he died March 18., 386. 


2. THE CATECHESES. .They are 23 (24) in number 1 and present 
a complete body of doctrine. The first 18 (19) are addressed to 
the candidates for baptism, vcoT& >fj.evot, and were delivered during 
the Lenten season. The introductory discourse, xpoxar/jffiaiQ, treats 
of the greatness and importance of the grace about to be bestowed 
upon his auditors. The first catechesis is a short and summary re 
petition of the principal truths of the procatechesis. The second 
treats of sin and penance, the third of the meaning and effects of 
baptism, the fourth of the outlines of Christian faith, and the fifth 
of the nature and origin of the theological virtue of faith. The 
following catecheses (6 18) contain a continuous exposition and 
demonstration of every word and every sentence in the Creed as 
recited at baptism according to the Jerusalem ritual. At Easter the 
catechumens were baptized, they also received Confirmation and the 
Holy Eucharist. It is to the newly baptized Christians, vsopcoTtffTot, 
that the five concluding catecheses are addressed ; they were delivered 
in Easter week and are much shorter than the preceding instructions. 
They aim at making known to all hearers the mysteries of Christianity, 
hence they are called xaTy%7}0et ^jaTa.jco^7.a i^ and offer complete in 
struction, based on the liturgical ceremonies, concerning Baptism ( 1 9 20), 
Confirmation (21) and the Holy Eucharist (22 23). These catecheses 
have always been considered models of their kind. Their diction is 
simple and clear, and the entire exposition is mildly grave, tranquil and 
cordial. Their subject-matter causes them to be looked on as one of 
the most precious treasures of Christian antiquity ; the five mystagogical 
catecheses, in particular, are of incalculable value for the history of 
doctrine and the liturgy. The doubts once entertained by Protestant 
scholars as to the genuineness of all or, at least, the mystagogical 
catecheses, were suggested by sectarian narrowness and have long- 
since disappeared. Cyril bears witness to the Real Presence of 
Christ in the Blessed Eucharist in the following words In the figure 
of bread, i\t TUXW aprov, is given to thee the Body, and in the figure 
of wine the Blood, so that, when tliou receivest the Body and Blood 
of Christ, thou mayest become of one body and one blood with 
Him, (T jffffco/j.o^ xai awaifjLOQ WJTOO ; for thus we shall become Christ- 
bearers, yptoToyopoi, when His Body and His Blood are distributed 
in our members* (Cat. xxii. 9). What appears to be bread is not 
bread, although it seems thus to the taste, but it is the Body of Christ, 
and what appears to be wine is not wine, although the taste judges 
thus, but it is the Blood of Christ* (Cat. xxii. 9). This Real Presence 
is brought about by a changing (ns-capdtisiv) of the substance of the 
bread and the wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of 
Christ. At Cana in Galilee He once changed water into wine which 
is akin to blood: and shall not we believe Him when He changes 

1 Migne, PG., xxxiii. 


wine into blood?* (Cat. xxii. 2). We beseech the good God to 
send down the Holy Spirit upon the gifts that lie before us fro. 
xpoxeifjtevaj, and thereby make the bread the Body of Christ and 
the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatever the Holy Spirit touches 
is completely sanctified and changed (Cat. xxiii. 7). We select 
the following words from his description and explanation of the 
sacrifice of the Mass: After the completion of the spiritual sacri 
fice of the Mass, after the completion of the unbloody worship 
(i. e. after the consecration) we pray to God over this oblation of 
propitiation for the general peace of the churches . . . we all pray and 
offer this sacrifice for every one who is in need of help. We 
remember those who have already gone before us, first the patriarchs, 
the prophets, the apostles and the martyrs, so that through their 
prayers and intercession God may look graciously upon our petitions ; 
thereupon we pray for the deceased holy fathers and bishops, and 
indeed for all our departed , since w e believe that our prayers 
offered in the presence of this holy and worshipful sacrifice will be 
of the greatest utility to these souls . . . we offer up Christ slain for 
our sins in order to obtain pardon from the good God for them 
(the departed) and for ourselves (Cat. xxiii. 8 10). 

3. OTHER WRITINGS. -- We possess, moreover, from the pen of 
Cyril, a homily on the paralytic (John v. 5) delivered about 345 *, 
a letter to the Emperor Constantius on the miraculous apparition at 
Jerusalem of a great shining cross (May 7., 35 1) 2 , and three brief 
homiletic fragments 3 . A homily on the feast of Hypapante, or 
Purification of the Blessed Virgin 4 , and other writings, are wrongly 
attributed to him. 

4. LITERATURE. - - The best edition of the works of Cyril is that of 
the Benedictine A. A. Touttte (f 1718), Paris, 1720; Venice, 1763 (Migne, 
PG., xxxiii). The edition of W. K. Reischl and J. Rupp (Munich, 1848 
to 1860, 2 vols.) is excellent and handy. Nolte contributed some pages 
of text- criticism, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1862), xliv. 308 316. The latest 
edition is that of Photius Ahxandrides , with notes by Dionysius Kleophas, 
Jerusalem, 1867 1868, 2 vols. See Risi , Di una nuova edizione delle 
opere di S. Cirillo Geros., Rome, 1884. An Armenian (incomplete) edition 
of the Catecheses was published at Vienna in 1832. They were trans 
lated into German by J. Nirschl, Kempten, 1871 (Bibliothek der Kirchen- 
vater). There is an English translation of the Saint s writings by E. H. 
Gifford , in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the 
Christian Church, New York, 1894, sect. II, vol. vii. J. Th. Plitt, De 
Cyrilli Hierosolymitani orationibus quae exstant catecheticis , Heidelberg, 
1855. Ph- Gonnet , De S. Cyrilli Hierosolymitani archiepiscopi catechesi- 
bus, Paris, 1876. J. Marquardt , S. Cyrilli Hierosolymitani de contentio- 
nibus et placitis Arianorum sententia, Brunsberg, 1881 ; Id. , S. Cyrillus 
Hierosolymitanus baptismi , chrismatis, eucharistiae mysteriorum interpres, 

1 Ib., xxxiii. 1131 1154. - Ib., xxxiii. 1165 1176. 

3 Ib., xxxiii. 1181 1182. 4 Ib., xxxiii. 1187 1204. 



Leipzig, 1882. V. Schmitt, Die Verheissung der Eucharistie (St. John c. vi) 
bei den Antiochenern Cyrillus von Hierusalem tmd Job. Chrysostomus, 
Wiirzburg, 1903. A. Knappitsch , S. Cyrilli episc. Hierosol. catechesibus 
quae principia et praecepta moralia contineantur (Progr.), Graz, 1899. 
G. Delacroix, St. Cyrille de Jerusalem, sa vie et ses ceuvres, Paris, 1865. 
y. Mader, Der hi. Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem, in seinem Leben und 
seinen Schriften, Einsiedeln, 1891. 

5. GELASIUS OF CJESAREA. sopHRONius. Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea 
(ca. 367395), son of a sister of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, left some writ 
ings that have perished. See E. Venables, in Smith and Wace, A Dictionary 
of Christian Biography, ii. 621. - - The writings of Sophronius, a resident 
in Palestine perhaps at Bethlehem, and a friend of St. Jerome (De viris ill., 
c. 134), have also perished (cf. 2, i). Papadopulos-Kerameus published 
in the AvocXsxTa ispoaoXujJUttxrfc srayjoAoyta^ v, St. Petersburg, 1898, a Greek 
life of the famous monk St. Hilarion ; he considers it an enlargement of 
Sophronius Greek translation of Jerome s Vita beati Hilarionis ( 93, 6). 

67. St. Basil the Great. 

I. THE YOUTH OF BASIL. SS. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and 
Gregory of Nyssa are a splendid constellation in the heaven of the 
Church of Cappadocia. In this trinity , it has been said, are 
concentrated all the rays of that brilliant epoch of Christianity . Basil 
was born at Caesarea in Cappadocia, probably in 331, in a family no 
less renowned for its Christian piety than for its nobility and riches. 
From earliest youth his heart and mind were cultivated with watchful 
care. He was an object of particular solicitude to his grandmother 
Macrina, a woman of rare refinement and profoundly religious spirit. 
She took charge of him almost in infancy, and accustomed him gra 
dually to the restraints of a wise discipline, while she planted deep 
in his heart the teachings of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus 1 . His 
elementary training he received from his father Basil , a highly re 
spected rhetorician of Neocsesarea in Pontus. The talented youth 
sought higher education, first in his native Caesarea, then at Con 
stantinople, and afterwards at Athens. In this last city he entered 
into intimate relations with Gregory of Nazianzus whom he had al 
ready known at Caesarea. The two young friends were industrious 
and persevering, hence they made rapid progress in rhetoric, grammar 
and philosophy. But that Athens which failed, even in the beginning, 
to satisfy thoroughly the heart of our Basil, could not hope to make 
a deeper impression on him as time went by. After a stay of four or 
five years he returned to his native city in 359. Before long he had 
resolved to abandon his home, to renounce the brilliant career that 
lay before him at Cassarea and Neocaesarea, and to embrace a life of 
asceticism. I had wasted much time on follies , he wrote in 375, 
<and spent nearly all my youth in vain labors, and devotion to the 
teachings of a wisdom that God had made foolish (i Cor. i. 20). 

1 Basil., Ep. 204, n. 6. 


Suddenly I awoke as out of a deep sleep; I beheld the wonderful 
light of the Gospel truth, and I recognized the nothingness of the 
wisdom of the princes of this world that was come to naught (i Cor. 
ii. 6). I shed a flood of tears over my wretched life, and I prayed 
for a guide who might form in me the principles of piety 1 . 

2. BASIL AS MONK AND PRIEST. After his baptism by Dianius, 
metropolitan of Caesarea, Basil journeyed through Syria and Egypt in 
order to see with his own eyes the life of the monks in those lands. 
His travels gave him ample opportunities of studying at first hand 
the dogmatic questions that were then rending the Christian East. 
On his return he divided his fortune among the poor and began, not 
far from Neocaesarea, a life entirely devoted to God. He preferred 
the cenobitic system or the cloistered life in common 2 , to the ancho 
rite or hermit life; his teaching and example were so powerful that 
Rufinus could feel justified in saying 3 that in a short time all Pontus 
had put on another appearance : Brevi permutata est totius provinciac 

Gregory of Nazianzus was often a sojourner in this Pontic desert, 
and aided Basil in the formation of a rule for the monasteries that 
soon arose on all sides. They also published a selection from the 
works of Origen , *Qptfivoo$ (ptXoxaXia , the result of their common 
industry ( 39, 2). About 364 Eusebius, metropolitan of Caesarea, 
the successor of Dianius, persuaded Basil to enter the priesthood 
and to return to the episcopal city. With the elevation of Valens 
to the imperial throne (July, 364), Arianism got a fresh lease of 
life; attempts were soon made to win over the faithful of Csesarea, 
whose bishop was not only metropolitan of Cappadocia, but also 
exarch of the Pontic diocese , one of the five dioceses or chief 
political divisions of the Roman East (praefectura Orientis). These 
were days of danger for Eusebius who was not a skilled theologian ; 
and what the services of Basil meant, is well-expressed by Gregory 
of Nazianzus 4 : He was all in all to him, a good counsellor, a skilful 
helper, an expounder of the Scriptures, an interpreter of his duties, 
the staff of his old age, the prop of his faith, more trustworthy than 
all his clerics, more experienced than any layman. For the rest, 
Basil led at Caesarea the same ascetic life as in his Pontic cloister. 
In 368 a great famine visited Cappadocia, and Basil devoted to the 
support of the poor the fortune that had fallen to him on the death 
of his mother Emmelia. 

3. BASH,, METROPOLITAN OF CAESAREA. -- Eusebius died in 370, 
and Basil was chosen to succeed him, an election strongly favored 
by Gregory of Nazianzus and his father, the bishop of that city. 
Basil justified their faith in him. His first care was to reform cer- 

1 Ep. 223, n. 2. - Basil., Regulae fusiores, n. 7. 

3 Hist, eccl., ii. 9. 4 Orat. 43, in laudem Basil. M., n. 33. 



tain abuses in the life of his clergy, to arrange and improve the 
liturgy, and to open places of refuge for suffering humanity. In 371 
the province of Cappadocia was divided and two capitals were created, 
Csesarea and Tyana, whereupon grievous discord arose between Basil 
and Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, concerning the limits of their juris 
diction. He had to put up with suspicion and reproach for his 
mildness and patience during many years in dealing with the double- 
tongued Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste. He attempted frequently, 
but in vain, to heal the Meletian schism at Antioch. His chief con 
cern, however, was the overthrow of Arianism. Amid all the dark 
storms of the time he towered like a beacon-light showing the haven 
of safety to all who were of good will. All the onslaughts of he 
resy fell powerless before him, whether they came as violence and 
threats, or as flattery and deception, or as cunning dialectic and 
delusive exegesis. After Athanasius, it was to Basil that the East 
owed the restoration of peace, as soon as external conditions permitted 
it. He lived to see at least the dawning of better days. On January i., 
379, his soul quitted its bodily tenement, which had long been 
withering and wasting away. 

4. DOGMATICO -POLEMICAL WRITINGS. Basil left many writings, 
dogmatic, exegetic and ascetic, together with homilies and letters. 
The extant dogmatic writings are devoted to the overthrow of 
Arianism. The work against Eunomius ( 61, i) AvarpsxTixbc; TOI) 
A^oloffjTiY.oTj TO T J d jffffsftout; E jvofito j l must have been composed about 
363 or 364. He begins by calling attention to the fact that the 
very title of his adversary s work, AnoAoryTixos, bewrays a deceitful 
purpose; he is desirous to appear as writing in self-defence, whereas 
he himself is the attacking party. Thereupon, he deals in the first 
book with two principal contentions of Eunomius, viz., that not to 
be begotten, TO dfewqTov zlvai, is the very essence of God, and that 
in this concept of unbegotten being the nature of God is known 
(comprehended) in a perfectly adequate manner. Basil maintains that 
unbegotten being, in the sense of uncreated being, is only an at 
tribute of the divinity: ifco ok TTJV ftkv oixj ta^ TOV fteoo d. fivvr^ov elvai. 
xal WJTOQ av pairjv o>j fj.rjv TO dflvvrjTov TYJV odffiay 2 . He maintains, 
moreover, that the comprehension of the divine nature surpasses not 
only human capacity, but all created capacity whatsoever: o1aai 
3k o jx dvftpanrovQ [JLOVOV , d.A/,d xai TJJ.GO.V Aofixyv <p6at.v [)~pflaweu 
auT7J - - sc. TTJc, o jmaQ TOI> &oo Tyv xaTatyfiw 3 . The second 
book is devoted to the defence of the consubstantiality of the Son. 
The essential attribute of uncreatedness is not annulled by generation 
from the Father which is the proper distinctive mark of the person 
of the Son. Although begotten, the Son has never had a begin- 

1 Migne, PG., xxix. 497773. 2 Ady E j 3 Ib ; j I4 


ning; it is from all eternity that He receives from the Father His 
divine nature, hence is He consubstantial with the Father and co- 
eternal. In the third book Basil refutes the objections of Eunomius 
against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The two following books 
are also devoted to the defence of the consubstantiality of the Son 
and the Holy Spirit, but they have reached us in an incomplete 
state, or as excerpts ; very probably they do not belong to St. Basil 
but to Didymus the Blind ( 70, 2). The work on the Holy Spirit 
xspi TOO afiou Trvs j/jiaTOQ 1 , written about 375, treats also of the con- 
substantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father. In 
public worship Basil had made use of the doxology: Glory be to 
the Father with the Son together with the Holy Spirit (pera rou 
mo~j ffbv -w Trvs j/jtaTt. TOJ a^ico} 2 , maintaining that it was no less 
orthodox than the usual formula : Glory be to the Father through the 
Son in the Holy Spirit (dta TOO moo ev TW aflco ^vevjuaTij. In this 
work, dedicated to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, he justifies the 
former expression on the ground that equal honor with the Father 
belongs to both the Son and the Holy Spirit, because they are of 
one and the same nature with the Father. He wrote also, according 
to Saint Augustine 3 , a Liber adversus Manichaeos , but it has not 
reached us. 

5 . EXEGETIC WRITINGS. The place of honor among his exegetic 
writings belongs to the nine homilies on the Hexaemeron 4 (Gen. i. 
i 26) and the fifteen homilies on particular Psalms 5 . The former were 
highly esteemed, even in antiquity, by both East and West. Although 
his diction is very elaborate, he nowhere departs from the literal sense 
and eschews all allegory. It does not appear that he ever published 
the treatise announced at the end of this work 6 , namely : On man as 
the image of God. Two other homilies entitled De hominis structiira 
and a third De paradiso 7 , formerly attributed to Basil and held to 
be a part of those nine homilies, are spurious. The homilies on the 
Psalms were meant by the author to furnish, not so much an ex 
egesis of the text as a moral application of the same to the needs 
of the hearer or reader. They begin after the following manner 
(Horn, in Ps. i, n. i): The prophets teach one thing, the historical 
books another, still another is taught in the Law, and something 
else in the Sapiential Books. The Book of Psalms brings together 
what is most serviceable in all the others; it foretells the future, it 
recalls the past , it lays down the laws of life , it teaches us our 
duties, - - in a word, it is a general treasury, rafju&ov, of excellent 
instructions. There is no doubt as to the authenticity of the ho 
milies on Psalms i 7 14 (two homilies) 28 29 32 33 44 45 48 59 

1 Migne, PG., xxxii. 67 218. - De Spir. S., c. i, n. 3. 

3 Contra lulianum, i. 16. 4 Migne, PG., xxix. 3 208. 

5 Ib., xxix xxx. 6 Horn. 9, n. 6. 1 Migne, PG., xxx. 


6 1 114 115 (according to Greek numeration) 1 , some other homilies 
on the Psalms 2 are spurious or doubtful 3 . The publication by Pitra 
(1888) of short fragments of Psalm-homilies attributed to Basil con 
firms the opinion that Basil wrote homilies on many, perhaps on all 
the Psalms. The diffuse commentary on Is. I 16 4 is very im 
perfect in form and contents; though its origin is doubtful, yet it 
must be looked on as a contemporary work. Basil wrote also a com 
mentary on Job which has perished; some of his exegetic homilies 
are in the collection referred to below (no. 7). 

6. ASCETIC WRITINGS. -- A group of writings attributed to Basil 
that has only gradually reached its actual size, is known as Affxrjnxd 5 . 
It opens with three short treatises (discourses or fragments of dis 
courses), on the sublimity of the militia Christi , the excellency of 
the monastic life, ftioQ TWV /wya/wv, and the duties of a monk. Two 
other treatises on divine judgment, nepl xplpaTOQ flsou, and on faith, 
xspl mcsTzcoQ, are introductory to certain moral instructions, ra yttixd, 
or eighty rules, Spot. Each instruction is usually made up of several 
phrases, and each phrase is accompanied by pertinent passages of 
the New Testament. Basil insists first on the general Christian duties, 
and then on those of particular states in life. Two Myot daxynxoL 
of doubtful origin , serve as a link between these instructions and 
the two monastic rules of St. Basil: fifty-five longer rules, opot 
xard ~/MTOQ, in number, and 313 shorter rules, Spot XC/.T sntTofjL qy. 
Both are drawn up in the shape of questions and answers. In the 
former rules the principles of the monastic life are set forth; in 
the latter the main object is their application to the daily life of 
the monk. No higher praise can be given to these rules, undoubt 
edly Basil s own work, than the fact of their universal reception 
in the East, and their survival to the present time as the principal 
monastic rule of the Greek Church (Basilians). The last two pieces 
in this group are punishments, intrifjita, for monks and nuns who 
violate the rule, and ascetic constitutions, daxyrixai dtaTd^etq. i. e. 
comprehensive directions and suggestions for monks; neither is any 
longer accepted as genuine. The beautiful tractate on baptism, nzpl 
fianTtff/jiaTOQ, in two books 6 , is more ascetic than doctrinal in its con 
tents, and is likewise of doubtful origin. Altogether inferior and 
certainly spurious is the work on the true purity of virgins: xepi TYJQ 
sv xap&svia dlrfiooc, dtpftopiaQ 1 . To the Latin West and a later time 
belong the following texts, extant in Latin only: DC consolation? in 
adversis*, De laude solitariae vitae, and Admonitio ad filium spiri 
tual em. 

1 Migne, PG., xxix. 2 lb ; xxx> 

3 Among them in Migne, PG., xxx. 104106, also the homily to Ps. 115. 

1 Migne, PG., xxx. * lb., xxxi. 6191428. 6 Ib., xxxi. 15131628. 

1 Ib., xxx. 669810. Ib., xxxi. 1687 1704. 


7. HOMILIES. LETTERS. LITURGY*. The genuineness or spurious- 
ness respectively of some Homilies attributed to Basil is a difficult 
question. It maybe said at once that a collection of 24 homilies 1 , 
dogmatico-exegetic, theologico-moral and hagiographical in contents, is 
looked on in a general way as authentic. Basil is reckoned among the 
greatest ecclesiastical orators of antiquity. Perhaps the most brilliant 
specimen of his eloquence is the homily against usurers, xara TOXI^OVTCOV. 
printed among his exegetic homilies (see no. 5) as the second homily 
on Psalm 14*. None of the 24 homilies has attracted more universal 
attention and approval than the discourse (work) to youths, as to how 
they shall best profit by the writings of the pagan authors, xpbg TO JQ 
vioix; oTtfoQ av is sAAyvtxwv co<pAo~LVTO Aoycov 3 . The twenty -four 
Moral discourses, ijdixoi //r^ot*, are a tenth-century compilation by 
Simeon Metaphrastes from the writings of Basil. The authenticity of 
the homily on mulieres subintroductae, xsp} TOW ffuvetffdxTcov 5 , is 
disputed ; but many other discourses , e. g. De Spiritu Sancto (in 
sanctum baptisma), Hom. dicta in Lacizis . In S. Christi genera- 
tionem etc. 6 are very probably spurious. - The correspondence of 
Basil was highly esteemed. Gregory of Nazianzus tells us that he 
collected for a young friend (the) letters of St. Basil 7 . In the Bene 
dictine edition 8 there are 365 of these letters. Two thirds of them 
(47 291) belong to the period of his episcopal career, from 370 to 
378. The chronological order of the Benedictine edition of the letters 
was challenged by Ernst (1896) but victoriously defended by Loofs 
(1898). Most of the letters describe in detail, from one stand-point 
or another, events and conditions in the Eastern Church, particularly 
in that of Cappadocia, and have always been looked on as a copious 
and important store of original materials for the history of that 
troubled period. Some of the letters deal directly with points of 
Trinitarian doctrine, and are occasionally so long that they ma)* 
be regarded as treatises. The three so-called Canonical letters 
(188 199 217) addressed to Amphilochius , bishop of Iconium (see 
no. 4), and wrongly denied to be Basil s by some modern critics, 
contain minute ecclesiastical regulations concerning the penitential 
discipline; at a later date they acquired canonical authority through 
the entire East. The letters of Basil to his famous contemporary, 
the teacher and rhetorician Libanius, are undoubtedly spurious, as 
well as those of Libanius to Basil (335 359); the same may be 
said of the correspondence of the Saint with the emperor Julian 
(39 40 41 360). Draseke holds the authenticity of the correspon 
dence of Basil with Apollinaris of Laodicea (361 364), while Loofs 

1 lb., xxxi. 163618. 2 Ib., xxix. 263280. 

3 Ib., xxxi. 563 590. 4 xxxii. 1115 1382. 

5 lb., xxx. 811 828. 6 Ib., xxxi. 1429 1514. 

" Greg. Naz., Ep. 53. 8 Migne, PG., xxxii. 219 inc. 


rejects the letters as forgeries. - - The so-called Liturgy of Saint 
Basil * has reached us in the Greek text , and a Coptic translation 
of the same. It may be looked on as certain that Saint Basil did 
reduce to a fixed form and order the usual prayers and ceremonies 
of the Church of Csesarea, and that in this process he curtailed and 
enlarged with more or less freedom. But it is no longer an easy 
matter to decide with what measure of exactness the actual Liturgy 
reproduces the dispositions and order of the holy bishop, all the 
more as the manuscripts of the Liturgy , and even the earliest 
versions of the same, exhibit notable variations. 

styled the Great even by his contemporaries, and he deserved the 
title for many reasons. He was great as an exponent of Christian 
doctrine and as a homilist, greater, however, in practical life, as a 
prelate of the Church and a man of deeds. We may justly say that 
of the three great Cappadocians Basil was the practical man, Gregory 
of Nazianzus the speaker and writer, Gregory of Nyssa the thinker. 
We have already referred to the merits and success of this great 
Saint as standard-bearer of the true faith, as patriarch of Oriental 
monasticism, and as ecclesiastical legislator. His writings against 
the heresies of his time are all devoted to the establishment of the 
traditional teachings of the Church. The formula Fides praecedit 
intellcctum is occasionally stated by him as follows: In all discus 
sions concerning God it is faith that should lead the way (nicrtc, 
jjfsiff&a) TWV 7:f)} deoo AofwvJ, faith and not evidence, faith that 
compels the intellect to assent with more power than the conclusions 
of reason, that faith which is the result of no geometrical necessity 
but of the workings of the Holy Spirit 2 . It is tradition that fixes 
for us the contents of our faith. We accept no new faith written 
out for us by others, nor do we proclaim the results of our own 
cogitation , lest mere human wisdom should be accounted the rule 
of faith; we communicate to all who question us that which the holy 
fathers have taught us 3 . Only a portion of this tradition is found 
in the Scriptures. With regard to the objection that there is no 
evidence for the doxology with the Holy Spirit (abv rw xveunan, 
see no. 4) and that it is not found in Scripture, we answer as fol 
lows: in case nothing must be accepted except what is found in 
Scripture, this too must be rejected ; but if it be true that the greater 
part of the mysteries, TO. r.A^ara TCOV pjauxaw, are accepted by us, 
though they are not found in the Scriptures, we shall do well to 
accept this also with so many other elements of our belief. I main 
tain as apostolic teaching that we should hold fast to our traditions, 

1 Migne, PG., xxxi. 16291678. 2 Horn, in Ps. 115, n. I. 
3 Ep. 140, n. 2. 

67. ST. BASIL THE GREAT. 28 1 

even if they be not stated in the Scriptures . He then adduces the 
text of I Cor. xi. 2 and 2 Thess. ii. 1 5 *. 

9. HIS TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE. The Trinity is, naturally 

enough, the chief subject of the dogmatic writings of Basil. Against 
the Arians he maintains the unity of God, and against the Sabellians 
the trinity of persons in the Godhead: pia oiima, Tpztc, bTzoa-daetq. 
In God, he writes to his brother Gregory 2 , there are at once a 
certain ineffable and incomprehensible community and distinction : the 
distinction of persons does not exclude the unity of nature, nor does 
the unity of nature destroy the proper and characteristic marks of 
distinction. In the homily that he delivered against the Sabellians 
and Arius and the Anomoeans 3 he says still more pointedly: It is a 
shocking folly not to accept the teaching of our Lord who makes 
known to us with all clearness the distinction of persons (in the Trinity). 
For, when I go , says he 4 I will ask the Father, and He will give 
you another Paraclete . Therefore the Son prays, He prays to the 
Father, the Paraclete is sent. Is it not preposterous to hear T predi 
cated of the Son, He of the Father, and Another of the Holy Spirit, 
and yet to confound all three, to commingle them all, and to attribute 
to one thing, kvi 9 all these qualifications? Do not imagine, 
on the other hand, that you may carry off as an impious booty the 
separation of the persons. Though they are two in number, they 
are, nevertheless, not different in nature, and he who speaks of two, 
does not thereby assert that they are separate. There is one God 
who (instead of on the text should read oc) is also Father, one God 
who is also Son; there are not two Gods, for the Son is identical 
in nature with the Father finely rauToTr^ra eyei o UCOQ xpoq rbv 
Traripa). For I do not behold one divinity in the Father and another 
in the Son, nor different natures in both. In order therefore to 
make clear the distinction of persons, count the Father apart and the 
Son apart ; but in order to avoid polytheism , confess that in both 
there exists absolute unity of nature. In this way Sabellius is cast 
down and the Anomcean is routed. - - Basil undertook repeatedly 
the defence of the otwooaia or true divinity of the Holy Spirit, in 
forcible language and at much length, especially in the third book 
of his work Adversus Eunomium and in his work De Spiritu Sancto. 
The circumstances of the time were however very favorable to the 
Pneumatomachi , and this made Basil refrain for the most part from 
calling the Holy Spirit God; some of his fellow-Catholics were con 
cerned about this and raised their voices in accusation against him. 
But he was defended by Gregory of Nazianzus 5 . It is better, he 
says, to exercise prudence in dealing with the truth, olxovo/jLew rqv 
fiXfjftstav. and to look upon the circumstances as a kind of overhanging 

1 De Spir. S., c. 29, n. 71. 2 Ep. 38, n. 4. 3 Horn. 24, n. 3. 

4 John xiv. 1 6. 5 Ep. 58. 


cloud, than to do harm, xaraMeiv, to the truth by an open profession 
of it. He defended Basil elsewhere , after the same fashion *. - 
The procession of the Holy Spirit is described , after the prevalent 
Greek manner of comprehension and expression, as a procession from 
the Father through the Son (Hv dk xat TO a?tov Kveupa . . . dt zvbc 
mob TOJ k\>\ xaTpl wvaxTo/jtsvov 2 , and rb fiaadtxbv ds tcoaa ex na.rpoz 
dta TOO uovoflvo jQ ITU TO xveo[J.a Styxet) 3 . In the fifth book of his 
work Adv. Eunomium he says repeatedly that the Holy Spirit is ex 
fteoi) dt mo r j^. In the same work Adv. Eunomium, books I 3, he even 
stands for the filioque, and not as a theological opinion but as cer 
tainly being a point of Christian revelation. Eunomius attributed to 
the Son alone, TW /wvo^svst povq), the origin of the Holy Spirit, 
whereas Basil protested strongly, but readily granted that the Holy 
Spirit proceeds also from the Son 5 . A vigorous controversy arose 
between Greeks and Latins during the Council of Florence over the 
famous words of Basil 6 , to the effect that the Spirit has His place 
after the Son, because He holds from Him His being, and re 
ceives from Him and communicates to us, and depends completely 
from that origin : nap aoTOU TO tvat %ov xat Trap O.OTOL) Xa^dvov 
xat dyafflttov T^UV xa\ oAcoc, TTJQ ahiaQ exsiv/jQ Ifyufjisvov. That these 
are the genuine original words of Basil is proved by good arguments, 
extrinsic and intrinsic. But even were they the words of a forger, 
their meaning is true : and the entire argument of Basil presupposes 
it as something logical and indispensable. 

10. HOW SHALL WE KNOW GOD? Eunomius also gave Basil 
occasion to treat of the manner in which man can know God. 
The former declared that the nature of God consisted in being un- 
begotten, dfEwycria; he insisted that this alone was expressive of 
the true nature of God (see no. 4). Basil insists that our knowledge 
of God is not immediate but mediate. We contend that we know 
our God from His works, but we do not flatter ourselves that we 
understand His very nature ; for His works descend to us from above, 
while His nature remains ever inaccessible. " Creatures show us the 
power and the wisdom and the skill of their Creator, but they cannot 
enable us to understand His nature. Indeed, they do not necessarily 
represent the extent of His might, for it may very well happen when 
the divine Artist produces a work, that He does not manifest all 
His power, but manifests it only in a limited way. But even though 
He did display it to the full, from His works we should know only 
His omnipotence and not the nature of His innermost being. s 
Our human knowledge of God is therefore imperfect, but it is not 
a false knowledge of Him. It is easy to see that the principle of 

1 Orat. 41, n. 6; 43, n. 68. 2 De Spir. S., c. 18, n. 45. 3 Ib., n. 47. 

1 Migne, PG., xxix. 732 737. 5 Adv. Eim. 2, 34. 6 Ib., 3, i. 

7 Ep. 234, n. I. 8 Adv. Eun. 2, 32. 


Eunomius : either we know God or we do not know Him, is by no 
means a correct statement of the question. If perfect comprehension 
and true knowledge were identical, we should have no true know 
ledge even of earthly things 1 . Even after His revelations of Himself 
we know God only after the manner in which the finite is able to 
grasp the infinite, co^ O>JVO.TOV fvwpi&a&at rbv d-sipojueflttiq 01:0 TOL> 
fjuxpordrou 2 . Even in Paradise we shall not fully comprehend the 
nature of God. Our knowledge of the divine nature is therefore 
nothing more than our realization of its incomprehensibility : 
apa TYJQ flzlac odaiaQ T] <uff8yat$ cwroo r^ 


complete edition of the original text was published at Basle in 1532 (re 
printed Venice 1535, Basle 1551), and Paris, 1618, 3 vols., reprinted 1638. 
The Paris edition was the work of Pronto Ducceus (Fronton Du Due, S. J.) 
and F. Morellus ; critical notes were added to it by Fr. Combefis, O. Pr. ; 
in his: Basilius M. ex integro recensitus, Paris, 1679, 2 y ols. By far the 
best edition is that of the Benedictines, Paris, 1721 1730, 3 vols. The 
first two volumes were edited (1721 and 1722) by J. Gamier; after his 
death (June 3., 1725) the third was edited by Pr. Mar an, in 1730. The 
Latin version (not the Greek text) of this edition was reprinted at Venice, 
I 75 I 75 I > 3 vols.; at Bergamo, 1793, 6 vols.; at Paris, 1835 1840, 
3 vols. A second edition of the Benedictine text was published by L. de 
Sinners, Paris, 1839, 3 v l s - (editio Parisina altera, emendata et aucta); some 
critical notes to the first vol. of this edition were contributed by A. Jah- 
niusy Animadversiones in S. Basilii M. opera, supplementum editionis Gar- 
nerianae secundae, fasc. I: continens animadversiones in torn, i, Berne, 
1842 (the Benedictine edition, with appendices, is found in Migne, PG., 
xxix xxxii, Paris, 1857. The Migne text was reprinted at Athens, 1900 f., 
by Kaplanides. The two spurious Orationes de hominis structura (Migne, PG., 
xxx. 961) are found also among the works of Gregory ofNyssa (Migne, 
PG., xliv. 257 298) under the title: Orat. in Scripturae verbal Faciamus 
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; they cannot, however, 
belong to that author. For the treatise De consolatione in adversis, see 
113, 3. The treatise De laude solitariae vitae is identical with Opusc. 
xi, c. 19 (Laus eremiticae vitae) among the works of St. Peter Damian, 
in Migne, PL., cxlv. 246 251. The Admonitio ad filium spiritualem is 
found among the works of St. Benedict of Aniane (ib., ciii. 683 700), 
but it is an extract from the Liber exhortationis, vulgo de salutaribus do- 
cumentis (cc. 2045) written by St. Paulinus of Aquileja (f 802 ; Migne, 
1. c., xcix. 197 282); it is also found among the spurious works of St. Au 
gustine (Ib., xl. 1047 1078). 


in Glossaria Graeca minora, Moscow, 1774, also in his loannis Xiphilini 
et Basilii M. aliquot orationes, ib., 1775, published three homilies under 
the name of St. Basil. The first, De perfectione vitae monachorum, 
is identical with Ep. 22 (with the same title) of our Saint (Migne, PG., 
xxxii. 287 294); the second, De misericordia et iudicio, is at least of 
doubtful origin ; the third, Homilia consolatoria ad aegrotum , is certainly 
spurious. The first and third are found in Migne, PG., xxxi. 1705 1722. 

1 For proof of this see specially Epp. 233 235. - Ep. 233, n. 2. 

3 Ep. 234, n. 2. 


A.Mai published in his Nova Patrum Bibl., Rome, 1845, iii. part I, 449; 

part II, 281 282, an Epistola ad Urbicium monachum de continentia, 

that had escaped the Benedictines (Migne, PG., xxxii. 11091112), also 
fib 1853 vi, part II, 584) a Sermo de sacerdotum mstructione [Migne, 
PG! xxxi 16851688). An exposition of the Symbolum Nicaenum wrongly 
attributed to our Saint, was published by C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte, un- 
beachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und 
der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1869, ii. 4 7 ; cf. 1330; it has not the 
slightest resemblance, says Caspari (p. 27), to the symbol found m Basil s 
treatise -spl TTWTSWC (no. 4, Migne, PG., xxxi. 685-688). Extracts from some 
letters of Basil, according to recently discovered papyri codices, were published 
by H. Landwehr, in Griechische Handschriften aus Fayyum: Philologus 
(1884), xliii. 110136; see ib. (1885), xliv. 1921. Cardinal Pitra (Ana- 
lecta sacra et classica, Paris, 1888, part I) published as writings of Basil 
certain Fragmenta in Psalmos (pp. 76103), Ascetica (pp. 104108), and 
Epitimia (pp. 108 no). 


reae Cappad. archiep. et S. Gregorii Theol. vulgo Nazianz. archiepisc. 
Constantinop. opera dogmatica selecta (S. Bas. Adv. Eun. i iii, and De 
Spir. Sancto). Edenda curavit J. D. H. Goldhorn , Leipzig, 1854 (Bibl. 
Patrum graec. dogmatica. Edendam curavit J. C. Thilo , vol. ii). The 
books Adv. Eun. iv v are also found in J. Drdseke, Apollinarios von 
Laodicea, Leipzig, 1892, pp. 205251, but these two books are, however, 
by no means the work of Apollinaris of Laodicaea, as Draseke maintains 
( 61, 4) but very probably the work of Didyrnus the Blind, see v. Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 291329, 
and Theol. Quartalschr. (1901), Ixxxiii. 113116. A new edition of De 
Spiritu Sancto was brought out by C. F. H. Johnston, Oxford, 1892. The 
same work is printed (Latin text) in H. Hurter, SS. Patr. opusc. selecta 
(series I), xxxi. C. A. F. Fremion published (Paris, 1819) an excellent edition 
(with a French version) of the discourse or treatise, On the reading of pagan 
authors (reprinted in Migne, PG., xxxi. 563 590; cf. 1831 1844). Recent 
annotated editions of the same work were brought out by E. Sommer, 
Paris, 1894, and J. Bach, Minister, 1900; cf. J. Clericus , S. Basilii M. 
oratio ad iuvenes de Hbris profanis cum fructu legendis. Textum editionis 
monachorum O. S. B. ad ms. cod. Taurinensem recensuit, variis lectionibus 
instruxit, interpretationem italicam et notas adiecit, Turin, 1870. For the 
chronology of the letters of St. Basil see V. Ernst, in Zeitschr. f. Kirchen- 
gesch. (1895 1896), xvi. 626 664, and Fr. Loofs, Eustathius von Sebaste 
und die Chronologic der Basiliusbriefe , Halle, 1898. J. Drdseke under 
took, in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1885 1886), viii. 85 123, the defence 
of the genuineness of the letters 361 364 (correspondence of St. Basil 
with Apollinaris of Laodicea). The pretended Ep. 16 Adv. Eunomium 
haereticum (Migne, PG., xxxii. 280 281) is not a letter, nor it is the work 
of Basil, but a chapter from the tenth book of Gregory of Nyssa, Contra 
Eunomium; cf. Fr. Diekamp, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1895), Ixxvii. 277 to 
285, also E. Mercati, Varia sacra (Testi e Studi) , Rome, 1903, xi. 53 
to 56; for a brief letter of Basil in reply to one of Gregory of Nazianzus 
ib. (pp. 57 70); letter 189 of Basil is adjudged to Gregory of Nyssa, and 
is re-edited (pp. 7182) with the addition of hitherto unknown fragments. 
Recent editions of the so-called Liturgy of St. Basil are to be found in 
H. A. Daniel, Codex liturgicus ecclesiae orientalis (Cod. lit. eccl. univ. iv), 
Leipzig, 1853, pp. 421438; C. A, Swainson, The Greek Liturgies chiefly 
from original authorities, Cambridge, 1884, pp. 75 87 149 171; and 
F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1896, i. Con- 

67. ST. BASIL THE GREAT. 28 5 

cerning this liturgy the reader may consult F. Probst, Liturgie des 4. Jahr- 
hunderts und deren Reform, Minister, 1893, PP- 37 7 ~ 4 12 - ^- Vandepittc, 
Saint Basile et 1 origine de Complies, in Revue Augustinienne (1903), 
pp. 258 260. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffs , Freising, 
1901, i. 340376: Die drei grossen Kappadozier; 603 619: Die byzan- 
tinische Liturgie. 

14. VERSIONS. -- Rufinus of Aquileja tells us (Hist, eccl., ii. 9) that 
he translated into Latin about ten discourses of St. Basil and as many of 
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (denas ferme singulorum oratiunculas). The Bene 
dictine edition ot Basil s works contains (Migne, PG. , xxxi. 1723 1794) 
eight homilies in the version of Rufinus ; the seventh, however, is only the 
Ep. S. Basilii 46 ad virginem lapsam (ib., xxxii. 369382). The two 
monastic rules of Basil (instituta monachorum , Hist. eccl. , ii. 9), were 
also translated by Rufinus i. e. he made extracts from them which he 
embodied in one rule composed of 203 questions and answers. For the 
editions of this rule that the reader will not find in Migne (PG. , xxix to 
xxxii, op.p. S. Basilii), nor among the works of Rufinus (ib., PL., xxi.) see 
v. Schoenemann, Bibl. hist. -lit. Patrum lat. i. 619 622 (cf. Migne, PL., xxi. 
35 37). The nine homilies on the Hexaemeron were translated into l.atin 
(about 440) by a certain Eustathius Afer for the deaconness Syncletica 
(Migne, PG., xxx. 86q 968). An ancient Latin version of the commen 
tary on Isaias is found in Bibliotheca Casinensis (1880), iv. 390 424. 
An Armenian version of the homilies appeared at Venice in 1830. 
There is also an Armenian version of the thirteenth of the twenty-four 
homilies (see no. 7) known as Exhortatoria ad s. baptisma: J. B. Auchcr, 
Severiani s. Seberiani Gabalorum episc. Emesensis homiliae, Venice, 1827, 
PP- 37 4 01 - ? G- Krabinger , Basilius d. Gr. auserlesene Homilien. 
Aus dem Griechischen iibersetzt und erlautert, Landshut, 1839 (fourteen 
homilies from the Benedictine text, corrected from other manuscripts). 
V. Grone, Ausgewahlte Schriften des hi. Basilius d. Gr., Bischofs von Ca- 
sarea und Kirchenlehrers, nach dem Urtext iibersetzt, Kempten, 1875 1881, 
3 vols. (Bibl. der Kirch envater) ; the first volume contains the (9) homilies 
on the Hexaemeron and (21) selected discourses, the second the three 
treatises introductory to the Ascetica and the two Rules , and the third 
(97) selected letters. Selected discourses of St. Basil were also translated 
into German by F. J. Winter, in G. Leonhardi , Die Predigt der Kirche, 
Leipzig, 1892, xix. English translations of some of the works of St. Basil 
are found in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the 
Christian Church, series II, New York, 1895, vn i- * 

15. WORKS ON SAINT BASIL. A. Rocchi has made known two ancient 
Greek hymns in honor of St. Basil; see vol. x (Cozza-Luzi), of continuation 
of Mai s Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, Rome, 1905, part II, pp. 177 204. 
C. R. IV. Klose, Ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte. Basilius d. Gr. nach 
seinem Leben und seiner Lehre, Stralsund, 1835. J- Schermann > Die 
Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes nach den griechischen Va tern des 4. Jahr- 
hunderts, in Strassburger Theol. Studien , iv. 4 5. J. Habert (1647), 
Theologiae Graecorum Patrum vindicatae circa universam materiam gra- 
tiae libri tres, reprinted, Wiirzburg, 1863. Fr. Bohringcr , Die Kirche 
Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, 
2. ed., vii: Die drei Kappadozier, i. Basilius von Casarea, Stuttgart, 1875. 
E. Fialon, Etude historique et litteraire sur St. Basile, suivie de 1 Hexa- 
emeron, traduit en franc,ais, Paris, 1869. P. Allard, S. Basile, Paris, 1899 
(Les Saints). Id. , Diet, de la Theologie Catholique, Paris, 1905, ii. 
c. 441 455: Basile. H. Weiss, Die grossen Kappadozier Basilius, Gregor 
von Nazianz und Gregor von Nyssa als Exegeten. Ein Beitrag zur Ge- 


schichte der Exegese, Brunsberg, 1872. E. Scholl, Die Lehre des hi. Ba- 
silius von der Gnade, Freiburg, 1881. A. Kranich , Der hi. Basilius in 
seiner Stellung zum Filioque, Brunsberg, 1882. Id., Die Aszetik in ihrer 
dogmatischen Grundlage bei Basilius d. Gr., Paderborn, 1896. M. Berger, 
Die Schopfungslehre des hi. Basilius d. Gr. (2 Progr.), Rosenheim, 1897 to 
1898. Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), 
ii^ 25I _ 253: Ein angebliches Wort Basilius d. Gr. liber die Bilder- 
verehrung. K. Unter stein, Die natiirliche Gotteserkenntnis nach der Lehre 
der kappadozischen Kirchenvater Basilius, Gregor von Nazianz und Gregor 
von Nyssa (Progr.), Strassburg, 1903. H. Weiss, Die Erziehungslehre der 
drei Kappadozier. Ein Beitrag zur patristischen Padagogik, in Strassburger 
Theol. Studien, Freiburg, 2903, v. 34. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de 
1 Eglise, 2. ed., Paris, 1906, ii. c. xi: Basile de Cesaree. 


of Sebaste (see no. 3) circulated a pretended letter of St. Basil to Apol- 
linaris of Laodicea, in which heretical doctrines were set forth. The letter 
was published by B. Sebastiani, Rome, 1796. Cf. Ft: Loofs, Eustathius 
von Sebaste, Halle, 1898. St. Amphilochius (see no. 7), who ( was conse 
crated bishop of Iconium in 374 and metropolitan of Lycaonia (j after 394), 
was a prominent ecclesiastical figure in the controversies of his time. He 
is quoted as an ecclesiastical writer by later writers and by councils, but 
the works current under his name (homiliae, epistola iambica ad Seleucum etc.) 
are probably all spurious, with the exception of an excellent synodal letter 
on the true divinity of the Holy Spirit, written in 377 in the name of a 
synod of his suffragans of Lycaonia, apparently to the bishops of Lycia. 
The works of Amphilochius, spurious and authentic, are found in Gallandi, 
Bibl. vet. Patr., vi. 457514 (Migne, PG., xxxix. 13130). The Epistola 
synodalis is also in J. D. H. Goldhorn , S. Basilii opp. dogm. sel., 
Leipzig, 1854, pp. 630635; cf. Fessler-Jungmann, Institt. Patrol., i. 600 
to 604. A hitherto unedited homily on the barren trees was published 
lately by B. Z., Amphilochios von Ikonion. Rede iiber die unfruchtbaren 
Baume, zum erstenmal herausgegeben, Jurjew in Livland, 1901. K. Holl, 
Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhaltnis zu den grossen Kappa- 
doziern, Tiibingen, 1904. 

68. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian. 

of Nazianzus was^ born about 330, a little before Basil the Great, on 
the estate of Arianzum near Nazianzus, a city of south-western Cappa- 
docia. He was like Basil educated in a spirit of Christian piety. 
The latter had been guided in the path of virtue by his holy 
grandmother Macrina; similarly, Gregory owed to his holy mother 
Nonna the first impulse to a religious life. He was sent as a youth 
to the most celebrated schools of his time, to Csesarea in Cappa- 
docia where he became acquainted with Basil, to Caesarea in Pale 
stine, also to Alexandria and Athens, where his former acquaintance 
with Basil grew into the intimate attachment that he still cherished 
with all the enthusiasm of boyhood when in 381 he was called on 
to deliver the funeral oration over the body of his friend *. About 
the year 360 he left Athens, was baptized at home, and lived partly 

1 Orat. 43, in laudem Basilii M. 


at Arianzum and partly in monastic retirement with Basil in Pontus. 
This life seemed to him the supreme ideal, even while yet a student 
at Athens. At Arianzum, in the bosom of his family, he continued 
to cherish his early longings for a life dedicated in solitude to the 
service of God. In 360 or 361, he appeared publicly for the first 
time, and in the quality of peacemaker. His father Gregory was 
bishop of Nazianzus, and as such had signed the semiarian formula 
of Rimini (359) giving thereby grave scandal to the monks of Na 
zianzus who were firm adherents to the Nicene faith. Gregory 
caused his father to make in public an entirely orthodox profession 
of faith, and thereby appeased the monks (others place these events 
in 363 and 364). 

2. GREGORY AS PRIEST AND BISHOP. --It was probably in 361, 
at Christmas, that Gregory was ordained a priest, against his will, 
and by his father, in deference to the insistence of the people of 
Nazianzus. In his displeasure at the violence done him, he fled to his 
friend in Pontus, but soon returned, probably by Easter 362, and 
continued thenceforth to aid his father in the administration of the 
diocese. When Basil was engaged in his controversy with Anthimus, 
bishop of Tyana ( 67, 3), he established several new sees in the 
smaller cities of Cappadocia, and placed his friend Gregory over one 
of them. This was Sasima, a poor and insignificant place in the terri 
tory to which Anthimus was laying claim as metropolitan. It was only 
after much resistance that Gregory was consecrated bishop by Basil at 
Nazianzus, but he soon withdrew into solitude; indeed, it is very doubt 
ful whether he ever took possession of the see of Sasima. Yielding 
only the urgent requests of his father he returned to Nazianzus in 372, 
and took up the burden of diocesan administration again. His father 
died early in 374, and soon afterwards his mother breathed her last. 
About 369 his younger brother Caesarius and his sister Gorgonia had 
passed away. In 375 Gregory who also had to endure great bodily 
sufferings laid down his charge as administrator of Nazianzus and 
entered upon a life of retirement and contemplation at Seleucia in 
Isauria. The sad news of the death of his friend Basil reached him 
here (379) and strengthened him in his resolution utterly to, renounce 
all secular interests. 

3. GREGORY AT CONSTANTINOPLE. He was not, however, to enjoy 
the repose he so much desired. During the reign of Valens, the 
orthodox Catholics of Constantinople had dwindled to an almost im 
perceptible nucleus. When, however, Theodosius mounted the imperial 
throne (Jan. 19., 379), a happier future seemed to dawn for them, and 
they turned to Gregory with an urgent prayer to come to their aid 
and to reorganize the affairs of their church. He came (379) to the 
Capital of the East and commenced there a beneficent revival of re 
ligion. The various Arian parties put obstacles in his way and even 


fomented discord in the ranks of the orthodox; more than once the 
life of Gregory was imperilled. His holy zeal knew no fear, and his 
marvellous eloquence won all hearts. His fame was so great that 
St. Jerome, though a man of mature age, was not ashamed to betake 
himself to Constantinople in order to listen to the preaching of Gregory 
and to profit by his special instruction in the interpretation of the 
Scriptures. The cathedral of the city had hitherto been held by the 
Arians, but when Theodosius made his triumphal entry (Dec. 24., 380) 
he caused it, probably the church of the Apostles, to be restored 
to the Catholics. The latter now insisted on having Gregory as 
their bishop, but he resisted with stubbornness until the meeting of 
the Second Ecumenical Council convoked by Theodosius and opened 
in May 381. The fathers declared him bishop of the city. It was 
with deep sorrow that he beheld the failure of his efforts to end 
the Meletian schism at Antioch, owing chiefly to the opposition of 
the younger members of the synod. When, therefore, the bishops of 
Egypt and Macedonia disputed the regularity of his nomination to 
the see of Constantinople, on the ground that it had been made 
before their arrival, he laid down the burden and dignity. In a 
splendid discourse delivered in the Cathedral before the episcopal 
assembly he bade them adieu and departed, probably in June 381. 
He retired to Nazianzus, and guided and protected the community 
of that city which had lost in his father its bishop, until, about 383, 
according to the desire of Gregory, it received in Eulalius a new 
pastor. Thenceforth he lived at Arianzum, devoted to his ascetical 
practices and his books. It was here, at his birthplace, that he 
died, probably in 389 or 390. 

4. THE ORATIONS OF GREGORY. -- His writings fall naturally into 
three groups: Orations, Letters, and Poems. The 45 Orations are 
the most important 1 ; among them those numbered 27 31 have 
always been considered the most perfect of his compositions. He de 
signated them himself 2 as ol rr^ &so tafias to^oi, and it is to them 
that he owes the surname of the theologian . They were delivered 
at Constantinople in defence of the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, 
and against the Macedonians and Eunomians. After treating in the 
first oration certain preliminary questions he proceeds in the second 
to treat of the existence, nature, and attributes of God, in so far as 
the human intellect can grasp them and human speech make them 
plain. In the third he demonstrates the unity of nature in the three 
Divine Persons, more particularly the divinity of the Son, while in 
the fourth he replies to the objections of the Arians against the di 
vinity of the Son, by interpreting correctly the scriptural passages 
abused by them. The fifth oration is devoted to a refutation of the 

1 Migne, PG., xxxv. xxxvi. 2 Ora t. 28, n. I. 


objections against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In many ways similar 
are the orations no. 20 on the order and establishment of bishops and 
no. 32 on moderation and purpose in controversies , both of which 
were delivered at Constantinople. The two invectives fanyjiereHtwo;l 
against the emperor Julian (no. 4 5) were composed after that emperor s 
death (June 26., 363) and probably were never delivered in public. In 
these discourses he intended to exhibit the person of the apostate, 
whom he had personally known at Athens, to the general contempt of 
his contemporaries and of posterity. Nevertheless, it is heat of passion 
that glows in them rather than true Christian enthusiasm. The oration 
no. 2 in which he explains and defends his flight after his ordination 
to the priesthood (dnoAo-^nxbt; rTjq dq rbv Ubvrov (p r^c, svexsv) is too 
long to have ever been delivered in its present form. Possibly he may 
have preached in 362 the first or apologetic part of the discourse, 
and enlarged it, at a later date, until it became the treatise that we 
now possess on the excellence of the ecclesiastical state. It is the 
model and the source of the six books of Chrysostom s xspi lepcoa jvrjC 
( 74, 8). The other orations of Gregory are devoted to some 
ecclesiastical feast, some article of faith or duty of Christians, the 
commemoration of celebrated martyrs, of relatives and friends, or 
some important event of his own life. Among the commentators of 
his discourses the most famous is Elias of Crete, who probably lived 
in the tenth century. 

5. GREGORY S LETTERS AND POEMS. - - At the request of his 
youthful relative, Nicobulus, our Saint made a collection of the greater 
part of his letters 1 . Most of the letters that have reached us 243 
in the Benedictine edition date from the period of his final retirement 
at Arianzum (383- 389), and appertain to personal occurrences in his 
life, or in those of his friends and relatives; only a few deal with 
theological questions. The 243 d letter, often referred to in later times 
fxpbg Eddyptov jwvayjw rrspl ^eoT^rocJ 2 undertakes to present, with 
the aid of comparisons, an idea of the relation of the Son and the 
Holy Spirit to the Father, within the unity of the divine nature, 
that itself suffers no separation by reason of such distinctions. As 
works of literary art, the letters of Gregory are admirable. They are 
quite laconic and short, replete with thoughts and points, fre 
quently written with a painstaking industry that is evident, and often 
meant for an audience beyond the immediate recipient. Most of his 
poems were composed within the same period as the letters. He 
sought to make headway, by means of poetical propaganda, against 
certain heresies, particularly that of Apollinaris, which did not hesitate 
to clothe their teachings in poetical garb in order to secure the ad 
hesion of the people. Moreover, his poems were meant to supply 

1 Ep. 52 53; Migne, PG., xxxvii. 108 109. 

- Migne, PG^ xlvi. 1101 1108, inter opp. S. Greg. Nyss. ; cf. xxxvii. 3S3. 



in some measure the loss of the pagan writings that were only too 
often open sources of immorality for the Christian reader. In the 
poem entitled In sues versus *, Gregory explains in detail the reasons 
which moved him in his old age to abandon the use of prose for 
metre. His poetry, however, is nothing more than versified prose, 
rather weak also and prolix. There is an occasional spark of poetic 
fire in his elegiac and satirical verses; otherwise, he is at his best 
in gnomic maxims and moral aphorisms, and in compact didactic 
instructions replete with Christian wisdom. The longest (1949 w.) of his 
poems is entitled De vita sua 2 ] it is also the principal historical source 
for the history of our Saint. The metrical form of his poems is very 
manifold, and in particular he exhibits a perfect mastery of trimeter, 
hexameter, pentameter, iambic and anacreontic verse. Occasionally 
he abandons the quantitative metre, as in the rhythmic Hymnus 
vespertinus and the Exhortatio ad virgines*. The tragedy Christus 
pattens ^ is a spurious work, written at a much later date, probably 
in the eleventh or twelfth century. Cosmas the Singer ( 105, 6) 
composed scholia on the poems of Gregory. The Greek Anthology 
includes some epigrams of Gregory on Basil, Nonna, Caesarius and 
others 5 . 

6. CHARACTER OF GREGORY. A certain irresoluteness appears 
in the whole life of Gregory; he yearns for solitude and quiet con 
templation, and yet the prayers of his friends and his own sense of 
duty call him back to the active life, to a share in the movements 
and conflicts of his time. In this sphere he owes his success chiefly 
to his powerful eloquence. Though he is not a great ecclesiastical 
ruler like his friend Basil, he surpasses him in his command of the 
resources of persuasive rhetoric. He is beyond doubt one of the 
greatest orators of Christian antiquity, and that in spite of the tribute 
he had to pay to the taste of. his own time which demanded a florid 
and grandiloquent style. In his didactic discourses he appears as an 
exponent and defender of the tradition of Christian faith. For him 
it is a matter of pride that he holds , unmodified and unadapted to 
the changing circumstances of his day, the faith that he has learned 
from the Scriptures and the holy fathers : xara Tidvra xatpbv opoiax;, 
o j aup.jj.op(po6n^oc, rolq xatpolQ** ; elsewhere he insists that he teaches 
(especially concerning the Trinity) after the manner of (Galilaean) 
fishermen, and not after the manner of Aristotle : &XtsuTtxwQ 9 /U OL>% 
ApioroTehxatQ 7 . Gregory is not a profound thinker like his namesake 
ofNyssa; independent speculation was foreign to his genius. Yet it 
may be said of him that he is in a higher degree than his famous 
contemporary and associate, the representative of the common faith 

Poem, ii, i, 39; Migne, PG., xxxvii. 13291336. 2 Ib., ii, I, n. 

* Ib., i, I, 32 and 2, 3. * Mignj PG) xxxviii. 133338. 

Anthologia Palatina viii. 6 Or . 33, n. 15. 7 Or. 23, n. 12. 


of the Greek Church toward the end of the fourth century. As early 
as the following century his dogmatic teaching was looked on with 
respect as a rule of Christian faith. Manifestum namque indicium 
est non esse rectae fidei hominem qui in fide Gregorio non concordat, 
says Rufinus of Aquileja in the preface to his Latin translation of 
some of Gregory s orations *. Later theological writers among the 
Greeks, e. g. St. John Damascene, quoted with special satisfaction 
the works of the Theologian . 

7. HIS TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE. - - Gregory s exposition of the 
ecclesiastical teaching concerning the Trinity deserves a careful study. 
His own mental tendency and a certain intimate relish, not less than 
the immediate needs of the faithful , led him to devote almost his 
whole life to the defence and illustration of that doctrine. He returns 
to the theme in nearly every discourse. The following passage 2 
presents an accurate summary of his belief in the Trinity: I give thee 
this profession of faith as a life-long guide and protector: One sole 
divinity and one power, which exists in three together and includes 
in itself the three distinct, not differing in substance or nature, neither 
increased by addition nor lessened by subtraction, in every respect 
equal, absolutely one, even as the single and undivided beauty and 
grandeur of the firmament, an infinite unity of three infinite persons, 
each being God as considered apart, God the Father and God the Son 
and God the Holy Ghost, each being distinct by His personal property 
[proprietas] \ all three together being God: that on account of identity 
in nature (ofjtooofftoTiQQ), this on account of one sovereignty (fjLOvap%ia). 
When in my mind I consider one, I am illuminated round about by the 
three, and scarcely have I distinguished the three when I am again led 
back to their unity. When I look upon one of the three, I hold it to 
be the whole ; my eye is overcome by the excess of light whose fulness 
escapes my powers. I am unable so to grasp the grandeur of this 
one, as to accord the plentitude (of vision) to that which remains; 
when, however, I comprehend all three in my contemplation, I see 
but one ray, and am unable to distinguish or to measure the united 
light. - - With regard to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, while he 
defended the reserve and the prudence of Basil in setting forth this 
truth ( 67, 9), he was himself less cautious. About 372 he asks 
himself publicly 3 : How long must we keep our light under the 
bushel and defraud others of the perfect divinity (of the Holy Spirit) ? 
The light should rather be placed on the candlestick that it may 
shine through all the churches, and in every mind, and over the whole 
earth, no longer as in an image and in shadowy outline presented to 
the intellect, but clearly set forth. 4 In his panegyric on his friend 
Basil 5 he relates how amid the cruel pressure of the times (rov xatpou 

1 Migne, PG., xxxvi. 736. 2 Or. 40, n. 41. 3 Or. 12, n. 6. 

4 Cf. Ep. 58. 5 Or. 43, n. 69. 



Basil had adopted for himself, in view of his 

exposed position, a prudent reserve (ryv olxovopiavj, while to the much 
less imperilled Gregory he left full freedom of speech (TTJV nappymavj. 
_ The filioque is not found in the writings of Gregory as clearly 
and openly as in those of Basil. He takes it, however, for re 
cognized and granted, that the Son also is principle or origin of the 
Holy Spirit. When he says * in his discourse before the Second 
Ecumenical Council (381) that the Father is avap%oQ, the Son dpjfi 
and the Holy Spirit TO pera rijg dpjtfjs, he implicitly affirms between 
Holy Spirit and Son the mutual relation of the Proceeding and of the 
Principle from Whom He proceeds. Moreover, he expressly says that 
the Holy Spirit is TO dfipow ffuvy/jt/jtlyoy 2 or composed of both, 
i. e. he proceeds equally from the Father and the Son 3 . The poem 
entitled Praecepta ad virgines ends with these words: One God, 
from the Begetter through the Son, to the great Spirit (SCQ &SOQ ex 
fsvsTao df ulsoQ IQ [ji^fa Trvsujuia the so-called xlvyotg TTJC, ftovddoQ 
sig TptddaJ, since the perfect divinity subsists in perfect persons. 

8. COMPLETE EDITIONS. - - The most valuable of the early editions is 
that of y. Billius and F. Morellus , Paris, 1609 1611, 2 vols., reprinted 
at Paris in 1630 and at Cologne (Leipzig) in 1690. The best edition is 
that of the Benedictines. Its history is rather unique. The first volume 
containing all the orations was delayed by the death of several co-workers, 
and was published by Ph. Clemencet, Paris, 1778. The second volume was 
delayed by the French Revolution and appeared as late as 1840, post 
operam et studium monachorum O. S. B. edente et accurante D. A. B. 
Caillau. It contains the complete collection of the poems and letters of 
Gregory. In the edition of Billius and Morellus the numbering of the 
orations, poems, and letters differs from that adopted by the Benedictines; 
a comparative list of the contents of both editions is found in Fessler, 
Instit. Patrol. (1850 1851), i. 747 762. The Benedictine edition is reprint 
ed, with many additions, in Mignc, PG., xxxv xxxviii, Paris, 1857 1858. 

9. NEW EDITIONS. SEPARATE EDITIONS. S. Basilii Caesarcac Cappad. 
archiep. et S. Gregorii Theol. vulgo Nazianz. archiepisc. Constantinop. 
opera dogmatica selecta (S. Greg. Orat. de dogmate et constitutione episco- 
porum, Orat. theologicae, Epist. ad Cledonium , Epist. ad Nectarium). 
Edenda curavit J. D. H, Goldhorn, Leipzig, 1854 (Bibl. Patrum graec. 
dogmatica. Edendam curavit J. C. Thilo. ii). A new edition of the Ora- 
tiones quinque de theologia was brought out by A. J. Mason, Cambridge, 
1899; cf. Miser, Les manuscrits Parisiens de Gregoire de Nazianze, in 
Revue de Philologie (1902), xxvi. 4462, and (1903), xxvii. 125138 
37 8 39 1 - E- Bouvy , Les manuscrits des discours de St. Greg, de Naz., 
in Revue Augustinienne (1902), pp. 222 237. A separate edition of the 
Orat. apologetica de fuga sua was issued by J. Alzog , Freiburg, 1858 
1868; one of the Orat. in fratrem Caesarium by E. Sommer, Paris, 1875 
1885 1898; one of the Orat. in laudem Machabaeorum by E. Sommer, 
Paris, 1891 1900. A diligently edited text of some epic and didactic poems 

1 Or. 42, n. 15. 2 or. 31, n. 2. 

D. Lenain maintains, in the Revue d histoire et de litterature religieuse (1901), 
vi. 533 , that by these words Gregory means no more than that the formula Holy 
Spirit is composed of two words Holy and Spirit*. 


of Gregory is found in W. Christ and M. Paranikas , Anthologia graeca 
carminum christianorum, Leipzig, 1871, pp. 23 32; cf. Prolog, xii xv. 
The two metrical pieces Exhortatio ad virgines and Hymnus vespertinus 
were last edited by W. Meyer, Anfang und Ursprung der lateinischen 
und griechischen rhythmischen Dichtung, in Abhandlungen der k. bayer. 
Akad. d. Wissensch., I. KL, xvii. 2, 400409, 1885; cf. pp. 313 315; 
cf. Fr. Hanssen , in Philologus (1885), xliv. 228 235, and Edm. Bouvy, 
Poetes et Melodes, Nimes, 1886, pp. 133 138. The poems of Gregory 
generally have been the subject of numerous works : M. Schubach , De b. 
patris Gregorii Nazianzeni Theologi carminibus commentatio patrologica, 
Coblenz, 1871; P. Stoppel, Quaestiones de Gregorii Nazianzeni poetarum 
scaenicorum imitatione et arte metrica (Diss. inaug.), Rostock, 1881. Cf. 
A. Ludwich, in Rhein. Museum f. Philol., new series (1887), xlii. 233 238; 
G. Knaack, in Neue Jahrb. f. Philol. und Padag. (1887), cxxxv. 619 620. 
E. Dubedout , De Gregorii Nazianzeni carminibus (These), Paris, 1901. 
W. Ackermann, Die didaktische Poesie des Gregorius von Nazianz (Dissert.), 
Leipzig, 1903. Christus patiens. Tragoedia Christiana quae inscribi solet 
XpiTro; ~acr/wv Gregorio Nazianzeno falso attributa. Rec. J. G. Brambs, 
Leipzig, 1885. Id., De auctoritate tragoediae christianae quae inscribi solet 
Xpircos 7car/(ov Gregorio Nazianzeno falso attributa, Eichstatt, 1883. A 
German version of that tragedy which preserves the original metre was made 
by E. A. Pullig, Bonn, 1893 (Progr.). For a more detailed discussion of 
this drama, the only survival of its kind in the Byzantine period, cf. Krum- 
bachcr , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2. ed., Miinchen, 1897, 
pp. 746 ff. 


The following mediaeval commentaries on the orations of Gregory are 
found in Migne, PG., xxxvi: Eliae metropolitae Cretae commentarii in S. Gre 
gorii Naz. orationes 19. E codice ms. Basileensi excerpsit A. lahnius. 
Accedunt Basilii aliorumque scholia in S. Gregorii orationes e codicibus 
Monacensibus excerpta (ib. , 737 932); Nicetae Serronii commentarius 
in orat. i et n. Accedunt duorum anonymorum scholia. Ex edit. Chr. 
Fr. Matthaei (ib., 933 984) ; Nonni abbatis commentarii in orationes II 
contra lulianum imp. ex edit. Montacutii , in laudem funebrem S. Basilii 
et in orationem in sancta lumina ex edit. Mali (ib., 985 1072); Basilii 
Minimi scholia in orationem duplicem contra lulianum imp., et de Herone 
philosopho, edente Boissonadio , et ad orationem funebrem in Caesarium 
fratrem, edente L. de Sinner (ib. , 1073 1206); Anonymi scholia in 
easdem orationes contra lulianum imp., ex edit. Montacutii (ib., 1205 1256, 
xxx). A supplement to these commentaries is printed in Migne, PG., 
cxxvii. 1177- 1480: Nicetae Serronii Heracleensis metropolitae Expositio 
in oratt. 38 39 40 45 44 41, but only in the Latin version of Billius. For 
the commentaries of Abbot Nonnus cf. E. Patzig , De Nonnianis in 
IV orationes Gregorii Naz. commentariis , Leipzig, 1890 (Progr.). Patzig 
is of opinion that the author of these commentaries lived in Syria or Pale 
stine, in the early part of the sixth century; the name of Nonnus is not 
vouched for by any contemporary evidence. A. Maraudiau (Nonnos), 
Die Scholien zu fiinf Reden des Gregor von Nazianz, Marburg, 1903, 
Armenian scholia attributed to the philosopher and translator David. See 
107, 3 for commentaries of Maximus Confessor on various orations. 
Other scholia were published by E. Piccolomini, Estratti inediti dai codici 
greci della Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pisa, 1879, pp. 145; cf. 
Pref. iii xlii, and by E. Norden , Scholia in Gregorii Naz. orationes in- 
edita, in Hermes (1892), xxvii. 606 642; Id., in Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. 
Theol. (1893), ii. 441 447. Migne, PG., xxxviii, contains the following 


commentaries on the poems of Gregory : Cosmae Hierosolymitani commen- 
tarii . . . (see 105, 6); Nicetae Davidis Paraphrasis carminum arcanorum, 
cura E. Dronke e codice Cusano edita (ib., 681 842); Anonymi Para 
phrasis carminis de libris canonicis (ib., 843 846) ; the Prooemium to the 
Paraphrasis of Nicetas David is found in Migne, PG., cv., 577 582. 

11. VERSIONS. -- Rufinus of Aquileja translated into Latin ten of the 
orations of Gregory ( 67, 14) and Basil. Eight orations in the trans 
lation of Rufinus were published at Strassburg in 1508; cf. Fessler, Instit. 
Patrol. (1850 1851), i. 570, and Schoenemann, Bibl. hist.-lit. Patrum lat., 
i. 627 628 (Migne, PL., xxi. 39 49). The version of Rufinus was not 
reprinted in Migne, with the exception of the preface (PG., xxxvi. 735 to 
736). The Syriac version of the letter Ad Evagrium monachum de divi- 
nitate (see no. 5) has already been mentioned ( 47, 5). It was edited 
by de Lagarde and Martin and translated into German by Ryssel. The 
Carmina iambica of Gregory were published in Syriac by J. Bollig and 
H. Gismondi , Beirut, 1895 1896, 2 vols. There is a Syriac version of 
the Orat. in laudem Machabaeorum, in Bensly- Barnes, The Fourth Book of 
Maccabees, Cambridge, 1895, pp. 55 74. Selections from Gregory were 
translated into German by J. Rohm (25 orations), Kempten, 1874 1877, 
2 vols. (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater), and by F. J. Winter (who follows 
closely in the footsteps of Rohm), Ausgewahlte Reden, Leipzig, 1890 
(G. Leonhardi , Die Predigt der Kirche, x); G. Wohlenberg translated the 
Apology (see no. 4), Gotha, 1890 (Bibl. theolog. Klassiker, xxix). An 
English version of selected orations and letters by Ch. W. Browne and 
J. E. Swallow appears in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers of the Christian Church, ser. 2, New York, 1894, vii. 

12. WORKS ON GREGORY. - - C. Ullmann , Gregorius von Nazianz, der 
Theologe, Darmstadt, 1825, 2. ed., Gotha, 1867. Fr. Bohringer , Die 
Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, 
viii: i. Die drei Kappadozier. 2. Gregor von Nyssa. 3. Gregor von 
Nazianz. Stuttgart, 1876. A. Benoit , St. Gregoire de Nazianze, arch- 
eveque de Constantinople et docteur de 1 Eglise, Paris, 1876, 2. ed. re 
vue, 1885, 2 vols. C. Cavallier, St. Gregoire de Nazianze . . . par 1 abbe 
A. Benoit, etude bibliographique, Montpellier, 1886. J. Hergenrother , Die 
Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit nach dem hi. Gregor von Nazianz, 
dem Theologen, Ratisbon, 1850. Schwane , Dogmengeschichte, Freiburg, 
1895, n > 18: Die Trinitatslehre des hi. Gregor von Nazianz. H. Weiss, 
Die grossen Kappadozier Basilius, Gregor von Nazianz und Gregor von 
Nyssa als Exegeten, Brunsberg, 1872. J. Draseke, Quaestionum Nazianzena- 
rum specimen (Progr.), Wandsbeck, 1876. Id., Gregorius von Nazianz 
und sein Verhaltnis zum Apollinarismus , in Theol. Studien und Kritiken 
(1892), Ixv. 473 512. Fr. K. Hummer, Des hi. Gregor von Nazianz, des 
Theologen, Lehre von der Gnade, Kempten, 1890. J. R. Asmus , Gre 
gorius yon Nazianz und sein Verhaltnis zum Kynismus, in Theol. Studien 
und Kritiken (1894), Ixvii. 314 339. K. Unterstein, Die natiirliche Gottes- 
erkenntnis nach der Lehre der kappadozischen Kirchenvater Basilius, Gregor 
von Nazianz und Gregor von Nyssa (Progr.), Strassburg, 1902 1903. 
K. Weiss , Die Erziehungslehre der drei Kappadozier. Ein Beitrag zur 
patristischen Padagogik, in Strassburger Theol. Studien, Freiburg, 1903. 
Duchesne, Hist, ancienne de 1 Eglise, 2. ed., Paris, ii, c. xii: Gregoire de 

13. C^ESARIUS OF NAZIANZUS. -- Caesarius, a younger brother of Gre 
gory (see no. 2), held a high and honorable office as physician in the im 
perial court under Constantitis and Julian, and was also honored by Jovian 
and Valens. He died just as he was about to retire to private life, in 


368 or the early part of 369, after a brief illness. The collection of (197) 
miscellaneous questions and answers, chiefly theological, divided into four 
dialogues and current under the name of Ccesarius (Dialogi IV s. Quae- 
stiones et responsiones : Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., vi. i 152, and thence 
reprinted in Migne , PG. , xxxviii. 851 1190), is declared spurious by 
nearly all critics. 

69. St. Gregory of Nyssa. 

i. HIS LIFE. - - Gregory of Nyssa was a brother of Basil the 
Great, younger, it is thought, by several years, though the exact date 
of his birth is not known. His whole youth, indeed, is shrouded in 
obscurity. Basil apparently took charge of his education; at least 
Gregory often speaks of him to their younger brother Peter in terms 
of respect and gratitude ; he calls him the beloved father and teacher 
of both: xarqp xa\ diddaxaXot; s. xo&^npg *. He was already an 
anagnostes or reader in the Church when he was seduced by the 
charms of a worldly career, and embraced the calling of a teacher of 
rhetoric; Gregory of Nazianzus says 2 that he would then rather be 
called a rhetorician than a Christian. It is very probable, though many 
deny it, that he was married. Eventually he yielded to the prayers of 
his friends, principally of Gregory of Nazianzus, and entered the ec 
clesiastical state. He gave up his office as teacher, withdrew for some 
time into solitude, and in the autumn of 371, much against his will, 
was consecrated bishop of Nyssa, an insignificant town under the juris 
diction of St. Basil. He met with violent opposition from the Arians 
of this place; in 375 he was deposed from his see by a synod of Arian 
bishops convened by Demosthenes, governor of Pontus. For several 
years he led a wandering life, being likened by Gregory of Nazianzus 3 
to a bit of drift-wood tossed hither and thither by the waves. The 
death of Valens, at the end of 378, brought about a change in the 
politico-ecclesiastical situation. The return of Gregory to his people 
assumed the character of a triumphal procession. In the autumn of 3 79 
he took part in a synod at Antioch specially convoked for the purpose 
of healing the Meletian schism. In 381 he attended the Second Ecu 
menical Council at Constantinople, and took a prominent part in the 
proceedings as one of its principal theologians. In execution of the 
second canon of the Council the emperor Theodosius issued a de 
cree (July 30., 38 1) 4 that all those should be expelled as heretics from 
the churches of Pontus who did not communicate with Helladius, 
bishop of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and successor of Basil, Otrejus 
of Melitene in Armenia, and Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory visited the 
capital on other occasions; the last time he appeared there was in 
394, when he assisted at a synod held by the patriarch Nestorius 
for the purpose of reconciling some Arabian bishops. After this his 

1 De hominis opificio, prol. ; In Hexaemeron, prol. et epil. ; Ep. ad Petrum. 

2 Ep. ii. 3 Ep. 81. 4 c. 3, C. Th. xvi, i, De fide cath. 


name disappears from history; it is believed that his death took 
place about this time. We learn from one of his letters 1 that his 
declining years were troubled by paltry annoyances on the part of 
Helladius of Csesarea. 

2. EXEGETICAL WORKS. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the most 
diligent and versatile ecclesiastical writers of his day. The greater 
part of his works deal with scriptural exegesis although it was not 
here that his genius shone most brightly. He was a great admirer 
of the erudition and acumen of Origen; hence, in most of his own 
exegetical writings he betrays the influence of the hermeneutical 
principles of the Alexandrine doctor. He delights in seeking and 
finding beneath every word of the biblical text a fund of moral 
instruction. The result is that under this treatment the literal sense 
runs great danger of evaporating, or of being sacrificed completely, 
e. g. at the beginning of his homily on the Canticle of canticles. 
He is most sane and temperate in his interpretation of the Creation- 
narrative concerning the endowment of man (nepi xaraaxeorjc, dvftpcoxoo) 2 
and on the work of the six days CAxoXofqTixbt; nepl rr^ kqa^jiipo }) 3 . 
Both of these works were written in 379 at the request of his brother 
Peter, the bishop of Sebaste. The former, also the first written, was 
meant to complete the homilies of Basil on the work of the six days 
( 67, 5); the second was written in order to remove some misunder 
standings of both the Scripture text and Basil s exposition of it. Through 
out this work Gregory follows in the footsteps of Basil in his homilies 
and pays special attention to the literal sense; towards the end he 
asserts, not without a certain satisfaction, that he has never distorted 
the literal sense of Scripture into figurative allegory, elg TpoTztxyv 
dtirrfopiay. Yet in later years, when he exhibits before a certain 
Caesarius the figure of Moses as a model and criterion for one s own 
life (itepi TOO fliou McovaicoQ ~ot> vofj.o&irou TJ irep} TTJQ xar dpsTTjv 
TSAstitTijTosJ* he indulges in the boldest and most fine-spun allegorizing. 
In the two tractates usually entitled : gfe ryy entrpapyy TUV faApwy*, 
he yields still more, were it possible, to his penchant for allegory. 
On the hypothesis that all Psalms contain precepts for a virtuous life, 
he seeks to demonstrate, in the nine chapters of the first tractate, that 
the Psalms as found in our collection are distributed according to a 
consistent plan, and that the division of the collection into five books 
represents five steps or levels of an educational ladder by which we 
gradually reach the summit of perfection. In the sixteen chapters 
of the second tractate he discusses mostly the Septuagint titles of 
the Psalms; according to him they exist for the sole purpose of lead 
ing to something good (TO npoq rt TWV d r atta)v xajhirqffaa&at, c. 2). 
In the editions of his works there is added a homily on the sixth 

Greg. Nyss., Ep. i. 2 Migne , PG., xliv. 125256. 

Ih, xliv. 61-124. 4 Ib, xliv. 297-430. 5 Ib., xliv. 432608. 


Psalm 1 . The eight homilies on Eccl. i. I to iii. I3 2 , aim at proving 
that this truly sublime and divinely inspired book has for its pur 
pose the uplifting of the spirit above the senses. The former will 
then lead the latter into a region of peace, through its renunciation 
of all that is apparently great and splendid in the things of this 
world (TO UTZZptteivat. TOV voi>v TYJQ alattf/aetoc, xat KWJGO.L xo.TaAi7cbvTa 
rtav oTiTcip ioTiv jj.ifa TS xal AafjLTtpov iv role, ouaiv (po.wofj.evov) 3 . The 
fifteen homilies on the Canticle of canticles (i. I to vi. 8) develop in a 
bold and free manner the idea that under the preparations for a human 
wedding the writer depicts the union of the human soul with God 
(TO jLtkv L)7cof i oa<po[j.evov smttaAa/jitoc TIC, iariv xapaaxBofj, TO o ivvooo- 
IJLBVOV T7JQ dvdpcomvTjQ ^^/ ^ ] TTpoc, TO ftelov kaTLv dvdxpamcj *. In 
his brief tractate on the Witch of Endor faepl TYJQ iffatrrptfjivjfavj*, 
he says that the woman (i Kings xviii. 12 ff.) did not see Samuel but 
a demon who put on the figure of the prophet. Among Gregory s 
interpretations of the New Testament are five homilies on the Lord s 
Prayer fslg TTJV r.poo&jyrjv)^, and eight homilies on the beatitudes (elq 
Touq fjLaxaptafjLO jQ) 7 , practical and exhortatory commentaries that have 
always been highly esteemed. The authenticity of the exposition of 
i Cor. xv. 28 8 is disputed by some. 

3. DOGMATICO-SPECULATIVE WRITINGS. - The dogmatico-specu- 
lative writings of Gregory of Nyssa surpass in value his exegetical 
writings. The most important of them is his large catechesis 
(Aofoc xar/j%7}Tixbc o ju.lfa.QJ 9 , an argumentative defence of the prin 
cipal Christian doctrines against heathens, Jews, and heretics. It is, 
according to the Prologue, formally dedicated to Christian teachers, 
and its purpose is to instruct them in detail how best to seize the 
opponent s point of view, and to proceed from his own admissions. 
Hence, the course of the argument varies between biblio-theological 
and philosophico- speculative considerations. Foremost among the 
Christian doctrines are the Trinity, the Redemption of mankind by 
the Incarnate Logos, and the application of the grace of Redemption 
through baptism and the Eucharist. The most extensive of his 
extant works , likewise one of the most important refutations of 
Arianism, is that against Eunomius in twelve (or thirteen) books, 
TrpoQ Euvofjitov dvTLppr)Tt.xo\ Xo-foi^. It was undertaken at the request 
of his brother Peter, of whom only this letter to his brother Gregory 
has been preserved n , as a reply to the bxkp TY^Q diroAofiac; 0.7:0 Aofia 
with which Eunomius had answered the writing of St. Basil against 
himself ( 67, 4), probably a short time before the death of St. Basil, 
with the double purpose of defending the latter against the accusations 

1 Ib., xliv. 608616. 2 Ib., xliv. 616753. 3 Horn, i to i. i. 

4 Horn. i. 5 Migne, PG., xlv. 108 113. 6 Ib., xliv. 1120 1193. 

7 Mt. v. i 10: Ib., xliv. 1193 1301. 8 Ib., xliv. 1304 1325. 

9 Ib., xlv. 9 105. 10 Ib., xlv. 237 1121. n Ib., xlv. 241 244. 


of Eunomius in his reply to Basil, and of fully expounding the 
teaching of Basil concerning the divinity of the Son and the Holy 
Ghost. The internal disposition of the books into which it is divided, 
and their order of succession , are not yet sufficiently clear ; in the 
text of all editions up to the present the connection and progress 
of the writer s thought appear interrupted and uncertain. Gregory wrote 
also two works against Apollinaris of Laodicea. The first dvTtfipyTtxbc 
xpoQ TO. AitoMiwapioi)\ is an answer (written probably before 383) to 
the work of Apollinaris entitled Demonstration of the Incarnation 
of God in the image of man ( 61, 4). It is devoted to the re 
futation of the heresy of Apollinaris, viz. that the body of Christ 
came down from heaven, and that in it the divine Logos took the 
place of the human soul (VOOQ). An appendix to this work is the small 
tractate XO.T *AitoXhvapiov 2 dedicated to Theophilus, patriarch of Alex 
andria. Other works of Gregory are devoted to the defence and 
illustration of the Trinitarian teaching of the Church. Among them 
are a treatise entitled : How we must not believe that there are 
three gods (xsf)} TOO fiy oieaftai Xiyew rpzic, ftzo jc,)^ addressed to a 
certain Ablabius ; a similar work entitled : Against the heathens on 
a basis of common sense (tipbc, "EXArjvac, ex TCOV xotvcov kvvoicov)^ , 
On faith, to the tribune Simplicius (nep} TrtffTsajc) 5 in defence of the 
divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit; On the Trinity and that 
the Holy Spirit is God, printed among the works of St. Basil (-jiep} 
TYfi a^iac Tptddoc, xou on ftsbc; TO Trvsu/jta TO aywv) 6 . It is addressed 
to Eustathius of Sebaste, and is by some ascribed to Basil. Mai 
discovered two orations of Gregory of Nyssa against Arius and Sa- 
bellius 7 and another (incomplete) against the Macedonians 8 . An 
especial interest attaches to the Dialogue of Gregory with his sister 
Macrina on the soul and the resurrection (xepl ^oyyQ xa\ avaaTdaecoz)*. 
He was still grieving over the loss of his brother Basil when, on 
his homeward journey from a synod at Antioch, he visited (379) 
his sister Macrina, to whom he was no less devoted than to his 
brother. She was then resident on an estate of the family situated 
on the river Iris in Pontus, as the superior of a pious sisterhood with 
whom she led a life of entire consecration to the divine service. 
Gregory found her in immediate danger of death ; their conversation 
naturally turned on their future reunion in heaven. This dialogue, 
composed shortly after the death of Macrina , puts into her mouth 
the views of Gregory on the soul, death, resurrection and the final 
restoration of all things. Macrina appears as a teacher, hence the 
work is entitled TOL Maxpivia. In the treatise against Fate, xaTa 

Aligns, PG., xlv. 11241269. 2 Ib., xlv. 12691277. 

Ib, xlv. 116136. 4 Ib ( xly I7 6 185. * Ib; xly 136145. 

Ib., xxxii. 684696, inter opp. S. Bas. M. Ib., xlv. 1281 1301. 

8 Ib., xlv. 13011333. 9 Ib., xlvi. 12160. 


he defends the freedom of the will against astrological 
fatalism. The treatise on children who die prematurely (nepi ~a>v 
vyxicov Ttpb ffjpaq d<papnoofj.iva>v)* undertakes to explain to Hierius, 
prefect of Cappadocia, why God permits such untimely deaths. The 
work Selected arguments against the Jews , sxlofal fj.apT jpicov xpbq 
fofjdaiofjQ 8 , is probably spurious and certainly interpolated. 

4. ASCETICAL WORKS. - - More or less ascetic in tendency are 
the little works : On the meaning of the Christian name or profession 
faepl TOU Tt TO zpuTTtavebv ovo/jta r] IndiffeJifia)*) written to a certain 
Harmonius; On perfection and what manner of man the Christian 
should be (mpl TE^ECOTT^TOQ xac OTTOIOV ypy elvat rbv xpurrtavov) 5 , to 
the monk Olympius; On the end (of creation) according to the di 
vine will (nspl TOO XO.TO. ftebv 0xono>j) G , written especially for monks. 
The admirable book; On virginity fnepl xap&Eviaq) 1 or the state of 
perfection was written during his retirement, about 370. Its purpose, 
as stated in the preface, is to strengthen in all who read it the de 
sire for a virtuous life, -yc, xaT dpsTyv ZOJYJQ. Elsewhere the practico- 
moral view-point often asserts itself in his discourses and letters. 

5. DISCOURSES AND LETTERS. - - The former are not numerous, 
but they exhibit the contemporary fondness for superfluous ornament 
and magniloquence, to which even Gregory of Nazianzus fell a 
victim ( 68, 6), although the latter is far superior as an orator both 
to St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Among the moral writings 
of our Gregory may be mentioned the discourses : Against those who 
put off their baptism, xpbc, robe, ppaoovovTaq ei$ TO ftdTTTifffjta] Against 
the usurers, xaTa TCUV TOXI&VTCOV] Against those who mourn ex 
cessively for their dead, xpbq Tobq nzMftovvTuq km Tolc, dxb TOL> r.ap- 
OVTOI; ftiou Tipbq TOV d idtov /jiettt(TTafjtlvoi(;. The discourse on the 
divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit and on the faith of Abraham, 
Ttspi tieoT /jTOQ otoo xat xvstjfmToc, AoyoQ xa\ Ifxcojuwv slg TOV dixatov 
Aflpadfji, delivered probably in 383 at Constantinople, is often men 
tioned with esteem in later Greek literature. It is the same subject 
that recurs in the discourse usually entitled On his own delegation , 
SCQ T7]v kwjroi) ystpoToviav, delivered probably at Constantinople in 
381, when he was charged, in company with Helladius and Otrejus, 
with the ecclesiastical supervision of the province of Pontus. He 
wrote also a few other discourses for feasts of the Church, panegyrics 
on the protomartyr Stephen (two), on the martyr Theodore, on the 
forty martyrs of Sebaste (two), on St. Ephraem Syrus and on St. Basil. 
We possess also from his pen three funeral sermons, on Meletius of 
Antioch, the princess Pulcheria, and the empress Flaccilla; the first 
was probably delivered in 381 during the Council; the other two 

1 Ib., xlv. 145 173. 2 Ib., xlvi. 161 192. 3 Ib., xlvi. 193 233. 

4 Ib., xlvi. 237249. 5 Ib., xlvi. 252285. 6 Ib., xlvi. 288305. 

7 Ib., xlvi. 317 416. 


in close succession, during 385 and at Constantinople. Gregory has 
given in the form of an encomium also his biography of St. Gregory 
Thaumaturgus ( 47, i) and that of his sister Macrina. There are 
twenty-six of his letters in Migne *. Special mention may be made of 
two letters that led to lively controversies between Catholics and Pro 
testants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They are no. 3 
to the sisters Eustathia and Ambrosia, and no. 2 on those who go as 
pilgrims to Jerusalem, nspl rcov dnwvrwv etc, fepoaoAoim. At the re 
quest of the Synod of Antioch (379), but according to others^ at that 
of the Second Eucumenical Council (381), Gregory made a journey 
to Arabia in order to restore ecclesiastical peace in that country, on 
which occasion he also visited the holy places of Palestine. In the 
first of the letters referred to, he relates the vivid impressions made 
on him by the sight of the holy places and speaks with sorrow of 
the unhappy ecclesiastical conditions of Palestine; in the second he 
condemns severely the abuses that were springing up apropos of 
pilgrimages and utters a warning against exaggerated notions of their 
religious value; in his zeal against abuses he may have failed to 
appreciate justly the intrinsic value of this pious practice. 

6. GREGORY S PLACE IN THEOLOGY. - The ecclesiastical impor 
tance of Gregory consists in his power of philosophical defence and 
demonstration of the Christian faith. He was a man of erudition, both 
as a philosopher and a theologian, but less adapted to and competent 
for the office and works of a pastor of souls and an ecclesiastical 
administrator. At least St. Basil complains frequently of the ex 
cessive amiability and simplicity (-/pyawrrfa axMrys) of his brother 2 . 
On a later occasion 3 he declared him thoroughly inexperienced in 
ecclesiastical affairs, TzavrzXcoc, axetpov TWV xara TO.Q ixxtyeiag, and 
quite unsuited to deal with a person so conscious of his office and 
position as Pope Damasus. However, all the more praise was be 
stowed on the scientific accomplishments of Gregory, which he put 
to the best use in his speculation on the doctrines of the Trinity 
and of the resurrection of the body. 

7. THE TRINITY IN GREGORY S WRITINGS. It is clear from the 
preceding account of Gregory s writings (no. 3; cf. no. 5) that he was 
an indefatigable defender of the divine nature. He is not so happy in 
his attempts to reconcile the Trinity and the Unity. He seems to anti 
cipate, in a measure, the extreme realism of the Middle Ages, and to 
admit, even in finite things, the numerical unity of essence or nature. 
We begin by stating , says he in the opening paragraph of the treatise 
De eo quod non putandum sit tres Deos did oportere 4 , that it is a 
prevalent abuse to bestow the name of nature in the plural on those 
things which do not differ in nature, to speak for example of many 

1 Migne, PG., xlvi. - Ep. 58 60 100. 3 Ep. 215. 

4 Migne, PG., xlv. 117 120. 


men. It is the same as if we spoke of many human natures. . . . 
There are many indeed who share the same nature. . . . But in all 
of them man is one (COGTS xoAAoug jukv e~ivai TOUQ /jtsTZffffxoTa:; dye 
(puffsco^ . . . zva dk ev Tracriv TOV avttpwTrov), because, as we have said, 
the term man indicates not the individual but the common nature. . . . 
It would be far better to correct this faulty expression of ours and 
cease to cover a plurality with the name of nature; we should then 
be no longer tempted to project our error of speech into theological 
doctrine. This confusion of the abstract idea that excludes plurality 
with the concrete idea that exacts a plurality, comes out even more 
plainly in the treatise Adv. Graecos ex communibus notionibus l : SCTTM 
dk xat IlirpoQ xal 775/0 xac BapvaflaQ XOLTO. TO avftptooq zlq av- 
ftpcoxoc, xal xara TO auro TOVTO, xara TO avttpcoxoc, iroAAoi o>j dwavrat 
slvat , XifovTat ok rroMol av&pcoxoi xara%pi]0Tix&Q xat o j x jpicoq. It 
is all the more necessary, he goes on to say, to hold fast to the 
unity of God or the divinity, because the word fteoc, expresses an 
activity rather than a nature (it comes from thaaftat, and means to 
look down upon all things), and this activity can only be one, 
although the divine persons have it in common. What is true of 
the Trinity differs essentially from what holds good in the case of 
the activity of three philosophers or rhetoricians. Every activity that 
proceeds from God, which relates to creatures, and is designated 
according to the variety thereof, takes its origin from the Father, pro 
ceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit, ex r.arpbc, 
d(fopjJLaTai xat dec/. TO~J oio^ Ttpoztatv xat iy TW KveofJtaTt TW ay iio 
TAsioi)Tat. Hence we cannot speak of several activities, though w r e 
predicate plurality of the active persons. The activity of each is not 
divided and separate; but whatever is done, be it God s providential 
love for us or His government and direction of the world , is done 
by the three, nor are the things done threefold, oi> {j.yv Tpia <TTII< 
TO. rwojusya. 2 .* There is a difference, therefore, between the manner in 
which the three divine persons respectively have the one divine activity 
ad extra, and their immanent mutual relations. Gregory often refers 
to this 3 . He lays all possible stress on one point : the distinction of 
three divine persons consists in their immanent relations. He ex 
plains with amazing clearness and precision the relations of the 
Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Should any one, he says 
toward the end of the treatise addressed to Ablabius 4 , object against 
our teaching that by the denial of any difference in nature we con 
fuse and commingle the hypostases, we reply that, while firmly ad 
hering to the identity of nature (TO dxapdJiAaxTov r^c (fvazioz,)* we 

1 lb., xlv. 1 80. 2 Ib., xlv. 125. 

3 Ep. 5 ad Sebastenos : Migne, PG., xlvi. 1032; Serm. adv. Macedonianos, n. 19: 
ib., xlv. 1325. 

4 Migne, PG., xlv. 133. 


do not deny the distinction between the principle and what pro 
ceeds from it. We find this distinction between them; we believe 
that the one is the principle and that the other is from the principle, 
and in what is from the principle we find another distinction. For 
the one is from the first immediately (npoffez&gj , the other only 
mediately and through that which is immediately from the first, so 
that the characteristic note of Only-begotten, TO povorsvsg, belongs 
undoubtedly to the Son. On the other hand it is certain that the 
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, for, while the mediation of 
the Son requires for Him the character of Only-begotten, it does so 
without taking from the Holy Spirit his natural relation to the Father. 
In the Sermo adv. Macedonianos, n. 2 *, he states the ecclesiastical 
faith as follows: We confess that the Holy Spirit is co-ordinate, 
<wyTTd%ttai , with the Father and the Son, so that between them 
there is" absolutely no difference as regards all things that can be 
thought and said in a God-fearing way concerning the divine nature, 
save that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis, xaff bnoaraaiv 
Idta&vTwq ftecopl(jdai, because He is from God, Ix TOO ttsov, and is 
of Christ, TOO XptaToo, as it is written (John xv. 26; Rom. viii. 9; 
Phil. i. 19; Gal. iv. 6), in this way that He does not share either 
with the Father in the property of not proceeding (TO dyivvijTov), or 
with the Son in the property of the Only-begotten. He frequently 
calls the Son the glory, oo^a, of the Father, and the Holy Spirit 
the glory of the Son 2 . Gregory never treats of such questions as 
the manner in which the three persons proceed in the one divine 
nature or from the divine intellect and will, nor what it is that con 
stitutes the three hypostases three distinct persons. 

LIFE. In his works on the creation of man, and on the soul and 
the resurrection (De hominis opificio, De anima et resurrectione etc.). 
Gregory teaches that man is the link between two distinct and 
mutually opposed worlds, the focus in which the world of the spirit 
and the world of the senses meet. The soul is not prior to the 
body, as Origen maintained , nor does it begin to exist after the 
body, as now and then some have inferred from the biblical ac 
count of creation 3 ; the two constitutive elements of human nature 
come into existence at one and the same moment 4 . Thenceforward 
they are and remain most intimately united ; even death does not inter 
rupt completely their mutual relations; their temporary separation is 
followed fyy an indissoluble reunion. He explains as follows 5 the eccle 
siastical doctrine of the identity of the present body with that of 

1 Migne, PG., xlv. 1304. 

- Contra Eunom., lib. i: Migne, PG., xlv. 372; Serm. adv. Maced. , n. 20: ib., 
xlv. 1328. 

3 De horn, opif., c. 28. 4 Ib., c. 29. 5 Ib., c. 27. 


the resurrection: Since the soul is possessed of a certain natural 
inclination and love towards the body that once was its own, there 
continues to dwell (in the departed soul) a secret fondness for and 
a knowledge of its own property, TOO olxeioo a /imc, re xat impninn^, 
Now in every such body there are inherent certain natural signs 
by reason of which the common matter remains distinct, and distin 
guishable by these peculiarities. ... It is not, therefore, unreasonable 
to believe that in the resurrection our bodies will separate themselves 
from the common matter and return to their special forms of being. 
This will appear more clearly if we observe more closely our own 
nature. Our essence, TO yfj.iTs.pov, is not entirely subject to motion 
and change ; it would be perfectly unintelligible if there were not in 
it something essential that never changed. Closer observation shows 
that there are in us a changeable and a permanent element. The 
body changes through growth and decay . . . but its form, TO eldo^ 
remains unchanged. . . . Now, since this form remains with the soul 
like the impress of a seal, that (portion of matter) which has already 
left upon the soul the impress of its image (form), can never be un 
known to the soul ; on the contrary, in the hour of final restoration 
of all things, TY/Q dvaffToyztwcrscoc, the soul takes again to itself what 
corresponds to the image of the form; but what was originally 
stamped with the form certainly corresponds to this image. In 
the treatise on the soul and the resurrection 1 and in the discourse on 
the dead 2 he treats more particularly of, the body of the resur 
rection. For a long time there has been much opposition to his 
views concerning the great difference that will exist among the 
arisen and its final cessation. Not everything)), says he 3 , that 
returns to existence by the resurrection will enter upon the same life 
as before. Rather is there a great difference between those who have 
been purified and those who still stand in need of purification. . . . 
Those who have been cleansed from the filth of iniquity through 
the water of the sacrament, did TOU udaToc TOO /i.U(TTtxotj, need no 
other purification, TOO eTepoo TWV xaftapmcov sl douQ, while those 
who have never received that sacramental cleansing , ol TW JT^C, 
dfjLorjWi. TTJQ xattdpaecoQ, must necessarily be purged through fire. 
Finally, however, all nature must, by an unavoidable necessity, 
return to its original happy and divine and painless condition , yy 
site TO fjtaxdpwv re xdt frewy xac TidarjQ xaTTjipsiaQ xe%a>f)tfffjivov 
dKoxardfframs*. When after long ages, the evil which now in all 
creatures has permeated nature, has been extirpated from it, and 
the restoration to their original condition takes place, 7; SIQ TO 
dpya~tov dxoxaTaaTaGic, TWV vvv iv xaxia xst/Jtsycw 9 of all those who 

1 De an. et resurr. : Migne, PG., xlvi. 148 ff. 

2 Or. de mortuis: lb., xlvi. 529 ft". 

3 Or. catech., c. 35: Ib., xlv. 92; cf. c. 8. * lb., c. 35. 


now lie sunk in evil, then shall every creature intone a chant of 
thanksgiving to the Redeemer; even the inventor -of evil, b supe-crg 
rob xaxov, will have a part in this hymn of thanksgiving *. In such 
phrases he maintains, apparently, a general restoration (Apocatastasisj 
to divine favor of all sinful creatures; the pains of hell have, 
therefore, only a medicinal significance, and are not eternal but 
temporary. Indeed, he repeats these views in his dialogue De an. 
et resurr. At the end of time, he says in this dialogue, all without 
exception will enjoy the divine bounty i. e. will live in God 2 ; the 
distinction between a virtuous and an evil life will then consist chiefly 
(ftdXutra) in the more or less rapid (ftarrov r t ayoka.u tTepov) realization 
of the hapiness that we hope for 3 . In his discourse De mortuis he 
says that the sinner must be purified in this life by prayer and philo 
sophy or in the life to come by the w r ay of purging fire 4 . When 
all shall have been finally cleansed from evil, then shall be resplendent 
in all the one divine beauty 5 . Nevertheless he often speaks of the 
pains of hell as eternal. Thus, in the Oratio catechetica, c. 40 6 , 
he says expressly that its fire is inextinguishable and speaks of the 
immortality of the worm, and of an eternal sanction, r t alcovia 
avcwoaiQ,; in his Or. c. usurarios 7 he threatens them with eternal 
suffering, eternal punishment, alwvtoQ bjTrq, y altovtot; xoAamz: in 
De castigatione* he speaks of unceasing and inconsolable lamen 
tation through eternity, rov atyxrov dduppibv xai dnapajj.6^rov sic 
alwvaQ. But this eternity is elsewhere interpreted by himself in 
such terms as raiq fmxpalq xsptodotQ^, TO~CQ xa&yxovmv xpovoio,, paxpaic 
xoT neptoSoiQ 10 . The hypothesis of Germanus of Constantinople 
( I0 7> 5) tnat the writings of Gregory had been interpolated at a 
later date is therefore both useless and gratuitous. Gregory could 
not imagine an eternal estrangement from God of his intellectual 
creatures. God cannot completely alienate himself from them. By 
an intrinsic necessity they must one day turn away from evil and 
cling to the good and the divine with which their own nature stands 
in such close kinship u. 

9. EDITIONS OF HIS WRITINGS. - - The writings of Gregory of Nyssa 
have hitherto been rather strangely neglected. There is no complete edi 
tion that satisfies even the most modest demands. In modern times G. H. 
Forbes %&& Fr. Oehler undertook the task of producing such an edition; 

. N. Gregorii Nysseni Basilii M. fratris quae supersunt omnia, in unum